Search - considered

DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENTS [15]      The defendant mentioned that the plaintiff's case was considered pursuant to the discretion conferred in s. 152(4.2) of the Act, and that the decision of March 9, 2001, was made in that context. [16]      The defendant asked the plaintiff's employer what its policy was on payment of automobile expenses. [17]      The employer informed the defendant that the plaintiff was unionized and he was paid a standard allowance under the collective agreement between the employer and his union. [18]      The defendant added that it was not up to her to assess all the conditions of the collective agreement, and unless the information received from the employer was completely unreasonable it was not this Court's function to intervene. [19]      Further, during the course of negotiating a collective agreement, it is very probable that the union will emphasize some areas more than others in order to benefit its employees. [20]      As to the decision in Yvon Royer v. ... Moreover, looking carefully at the sections of the collective agreement applicable here, I note that a remedy existed which the plaintiff could have used if he considered that the payment of the standard allowance for his travel was unreasonable. ... An allowance for travel expenses is not considered unreasonable merely because the employee's total expenses for business travel exceed the total travel allowances received in the year. ...

The Court must therefore be flexible in considering each criterion to ensure that justice is done and decide whether it would be in the best interests of justice to grant the extension of time (Alberta at para 45; Thompson at para 6; Larkman at para 62; MacDonald v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 2 at para 11). [18] Having considered the parties’ written representations, I am not satisfied that this is a situation in which I should exercise my discretion in favour of Clinique Gascon and in which it would be in the best interests of justice to grant an extension of time, because the evidence is wholly insufficient to satisfy the four factors that govern the exercise of my discretion. ... However, the reviewing court must refrain from “reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered” by the decision maker (Vavilov at paragraph 125). ... “Denis Gascon”   Judge   Certified true translation Michael Palles FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: 23-T-124 STYLE OF CAUSE: CLINIQUE GASCON INC. v HIS MAJESTY THE KING MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC PURSUANT TO SECTION 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: GASCON J. ...

The defendant also suggests that the plaintiffs have failed to give a reasonable explanation for the delay in asking for reconsideration. [10]      In response to the defendant's written representations, the plaintiffs filed and served a "supplemental record and written submissions in reply" which includes an affidavit and representations. [11]      That document is in some ways the record and the representations that should have been filed and served with the motion in the first place. [12]      The defendant filed and served another letter dated December 4, 2000 in which he strongly opposed the consideration of the supplemental record and written submissions in reply filed and served by the plaintiffs. [13]      The defendant suggests that this document is irregular because as a reply it should respond to items raised by the defendant and in fact, it raises many new arguments, particularly in paragraphs 4, 6, 10 and part of paragraph 5. [14]      I agree with the defendant that he is deprived of any opportunity to respond to this information even through cross-examination and therefore, it should not be considered by the Court. [15]      The defendant also suggests that the affidavit of Elvire Medieros was not included with the plaintiffs' motion materials, it was neither listed in the notice of motion as information which the plaintiffs intend to rely on and that this affidavit is improperly before the Court and should not be relied on. [16]      I totally agree with the defendant's submissions. [17]      In fact, if a party intends to bring a motion for an extension of time and also to be dispensed of the application of any rules, it should be explained in detail and the Court should be provided with valid reasons. [18]      In fact, it is not the case, here, and the motion for extension of time and to be dispensed to comply with Rule 364 is dismissed.                          ...

This motion for summary judgment has therefore been considered on the basis of the original statement of claim. ... Issues [24]   Having considered the submissions of the parties and the issues identified by the defendant, I have framed the issues as follows: 1. ... Consequently, they are not considered to be currency subject to the reporting requirements of the [Proceeds Act], but they are considered goods subject to the reporting requirements of the Customs Act. [34]     In advancing their respective positions, the parties in this action have similarly adopted the view that the coins in issue are to be characterized in a binary fashion. ...

According to the applicant, the Officer should have considered Quebec law, which requires the use of values in effect on the day of the judgment. ... Mosley” Judge Certified true translation This 30th day of July 2019 Margarita Gorbounova, Reviser FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: 16-T-6 STYLE OF CAUSE: DAVID LESSARD-GAUVIN v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO, PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: MOSLEY J. ...

. […] Although you incurred losses in your TFSA, losses are not considered as withdrawals. […] We carefully considered the circumstances and facts of your case in relation to the legislation that applies. ...

Employment at CRA should be considered a constitutional right. [17] The social contract between Mr. ... The Amended Claim does not disclose any material fact regarding the mobility rights provided for by section 6(2)(b) of the Charter, so this provision should not even be considered on the merits of this case. [17] To establish a breach of section 15, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (a) the existence of a distinction based on enumerated or analogous grounds, on its face or in its impact, and (b) that such distinction imposed a burden on or denied a benefit in a manner that has the effect of reinforcing, perpetuating, or exacerbating disadvantage (R v Sharma, 2022 SCC 39 at para 28). [18] The Plaintiff has now made some reference to these essential elements in the Amended Claim. ... “Jocelyne Gagné” Judge   FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-2129-24   STYLE OF CAUSE: ISAAC OLUSEGUN v HIS MAJESTY THE KING   MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: GAGNÉ J.   ...

Costs can only be considered from the time litigation is initiated. [underlining added] [9]                In my respectful view, the Crown is in error in relying upon the comments of Mr. ... There is no reason for the respondents to subsidize by a reduced award of costs whatever public interest might exist in having the legislation judicially considered. 6. ... Column III level costs are considered to address a case of average complexity (see Rule 407). ...

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I cannot conclude, based on the record before me, that Kameron has met the high threshold set by the CBC decision for mandatory interlocutory injunctions. [30]   While this conclusion is sufficient to dispose of the matter, in consideration of the arguments put forward by the parties I will also examine the other elements of the test. ... The factors which must be considered in assessing this element of the test are numerous and will vary with the circumstances of each case: RJR-MacDonald, at 342. [41]   The harm to be assessed is that which will occur between the date of the grant (or refusal) of the interlocutory injunction and the decision on the underlying application. ... Pentney” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-261-18 STYLE OF CAUSE: KAMERON COAL MANAGEMENT LTD. v THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CANADA MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES JUDGMENT AND REASONS: PENTNEY J. ...

Campbell J. found it was unreasonable for the RAD to have considered only the first option was plausible, as there was no “verifiable evidentiary base” to support the second inference, and granted the judicial review: He 2017, above at paras 10-11. [26]   In contradistinction, the Minister asserts the RAD reasonably was entitled to rely on the fact the Applicants were not stopped at the airport as proof they were not actually Falun Gong practitioners: He v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 728 [He 2019], above at paras 12-15. ... Unlike in He 2017 (at para 9), however, the RAD in this case did not fail to consider the possible alternative inferences altogether, but rather considered and concluded inferences 2 and 3 were not plausible: 1) The Falun Gong group was raided but the Applicants were not implicated because Ms. ... In this case, the RAD has considered that it found the Appellants not to be credible in regard to "being wanted by the authorities at the time they exited China; that the Appellants testified that they learned about the PSIB visits while in contact with family via video chat; and that they have not provided documentation regarding these conversations even though they were able to provide the principal Appellant’s girlfriend’s we chat page, which shows that they have the capacity to acquire this sort of information. [38]   The RAD indicated the need for corroborative documentation because it found the Applicants were not credible. ...