Search - considered

In that assessment of the record, I conclude the RPD was not microscopic and that the Appellant is not credible about his central allegations. [19]   The RAD first considered the Applicant’s omission of his father’s death from his U.S. asylum documents against its inclusion in his BOC. ... The RAD exhaustively considered the issue of identity against the evidence before the RPD and the Applicant’s new evidence. ...

Under certain conditions, Article 1E “excludes” from refugee status principal claimants who have left their country of origin (in this case, Haiti) and have obtained permanent resident status in what is considered a “safe” country [the third country] (in this case, Brazil) before coming to Canada and claiming to be refugees. [3]   In that decision, the RAD concluded that, under Article 1E, the principal applicants are excluded from the Convention, as both of them had been granted permanent resident status in Brazil. ... Zeng prevents the Court from drawing conclusions sought by the applicants or the respondent according to which the RAD should have considered the risk to the applicants in Brazil or Haiti [26]   After considering the arguments of the parties, it does not appear that there is much chance of success given the unambiguous contradictory statements made in Zeng. [27]   Both the Minister and the Court of Appeal have recognized the appalling problem of the potential return of a claimant to their country of origin, as an excluded refugee protection claimant, without a proper risk assessment being provided. ...

The Contempt Order [8]   On April 19, 2018, Justice Phelan considered a motion for contempt of the Compliance Order.   ... These post-hearing submissions have been considered in these Reasons. ...

However, sections 3 and 39 of the VRAB Act set out a framework within which evidence is to be considered by the Board, that is to allow the drawing of inferences in favour of an applicant. ... Canada (1997), 129 F.T.R. 286 at page 4, Justice Teitlebaum described the nature of a reconsideration decision as follows: It is important to clarify the nature of a reconsideration, a distinct type of review function that is not to be confused with appeal proceedings or judicial review applications considered by a Court. ...

Decision [23]   On a preliminary note, I agree with the Applicants that it must be implied that the Federal Court of Appeal considered the Travelway marks to be invalid despite not explicitly writing such   a conclusion, as it found passing off had been established. ... The Applicants confirmed as much, but maintained that the principle remains the same even with registered trademarks. [43]   The Court does not agree with the Applicants' position, considering the protection granted by section 19 of the Act, the Federal Court of Appeal's reasons in Remo FCA, the Supreme Court's obiter in Veuve Clicquot, and considering as well that the circumstances that would allow for expungement ab initio are not in play. [44]   Finally, even if I had considered the other grounds for expungement in dispute, my decision on entitlement to monetary relief would be no different. [45]   If I am wrong and the Applicants are entitled to monetary compensation for the past, I am of the view that it should take the form of an accounting of Travelway's profits, as sought by the Applicants, rather than an award of damages. ...

The allegations that are being considered are sections A34(1)(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; and/or A34(1)(F) [sic] being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph [34] (a) (b), (b.1) or (c) of the [IRPA]. [13]   The Officer then explained that the next step in the process would be to conduct a review of the case. ... He was also informed of the specific allegations being considered, namely, those contemplated by paragraphs 34(1)(e) and (f) of the IRPA. ...

Goodwin, the unsuccessful public interest litigant, in that case. [26]   I have considered both the relevant factors in Rule 400(3) of the Federal Courts Rules along with the prevailing jurisprudence. ... Fuhrer” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-1736-14   STYLE OF CAUSE: GWENDOLYN LOUISE DEEGAN and KAZIA HIGHTON v THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE   motion in writing considered at ottawa, ontario pursuant to rule 369 of the federal courts rules ORDER AND REASONS: FUHRER, J.   ...

In essence, the Applicant argues that the visa officer was not alive to what was before him and failed to provide sufficient reasons to justify his decision to reject the Applicant’s visa application. [17]   The Respondent argues that the visa officer considered all of the relevant factors and rendered a reasonable decision. The Respondent argues that the visa officer was reasonable when he considered the Applicant’s low salary in Nigeria, her status as a single woman, and the economic conditions in Nigeria when deciding to refuse the Applicant’s work permit application. ...

The RPD is presumed to have weighed and examined all the evidence submitted to it, unless it is demonstrated not to have done so (Newfoundland Nurses at para 16; Florea v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] FCJ No 598 (FCA) at para 1) In this case, I am satisfied that the RPD considered all the evidence, even if it does not refer directly to all its components. ... The RAD upheld the RPD’s conclusion that the female applicant’s lack of credibility was due to significant contradictions in a central element of her account. [43]   It is well established by jurisprudence that contradictions that may appear minor in isolation may be fatal to a witness’s credibility when they add up and are considered in the context of the refugee protection claim (Rajaratnam v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (FCA), [1991] FCJ No 1271, (1991) 135 NR 300; Aguilar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 150 at para 42). ...

According to the applicant, his age is relevant because he was a minor at the time of the incidents that prompted his refugee protection claim. [27]   The respondent argues that the RPD explicitly considered the applicant’s age at the time of the alleged incidents as well as his level of education. ... The RPD explicitly considered the applicant’s age at the time of the alleged incidents and at the hearing, but found that there were problems concerning the applicant’s credibility and insufficient evidence to support his claims based on sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA. ...