Search - considered

Yet that simply carries on a long-standing regime under Customs Acts of the past, at least in relation to goods seized, for the goods are forfeited to Her Majesty at the time of the contravention of the Act (s. 122), and terms of any remission, where the Act or regulations are contravened, have been considered beyond the role of the Court to review.  ... Nguyen’s favour, the legislative provisions with the privative clause are so restrictive that the factual evidence, although fully considered, cannot make a difference under the legislative context in Ms. ...

The phrase "in respect of" was considered by this Court in Nowegijick v. ...   (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a document shall be considered to be within a party's power or control if       (a) the party is entitled to obtain the original document or a copy of it; and   (b) no adverse party is so entitled ...

In Simon v Canada, 2011 FCA 6, at para 8, 14-15, 410 NR 374, the Federal Court of Appeal considered the circumstances justifying that a party be authorized to amend a faulty pleading to prevent its outright rejection: 8         Motions to strike are governed by Rule 221 of the Federal Courts Rules which provides that a pleading may be struck out with or without leave to amend.  ... [Emphasis added]   [25]            In Carten v Canada, 2010 FC 857 at paras 19, 23-24 (available on CanLII) (available in English only), Justice Gauthier cited James River Corp, above, and explained in which circumstances new evidence may be considered: I must next deal with the defendant's objection to the filing of new evidence. ...

However, since the bankrupt was not a party to the appeal, the Court of Appeal considered the decision of the Superior Court and held that there was res judicata between the bankrupt and the trustee in bankruptcy. ...   [67]            Furthermore, London Life’s argument to the effect that a written request is necessary for the surrender value to be considered to be a debt amounts to cancelling out the effect of Malenfant. ...

Finlay considered the Synopsis and aimed to obtain the Applicant’s money quickly and in advance of any provincial action pursuant to legislation pertaining to the proceeds of crime. ... Laing from the partnership, when considered with the Respondent’s version of events that the Minister subsequently determined, following an audit, that there was insufficient evidence to include Ms. ...

A plain reading of the legislation and an examination of the relevant jurisprudence establish that upon the bankruptcy of Cheese Factory, the deemed trust under section 222(1) of the ETA was rendered ineffective against Callidus for collected but unremitted GST and HST. [21]            The issues in this case are similar to those considered by the Supreme Court in Century Services Inc v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 SCC 60 (“Century”). ... Sections 67(2) and 67(3) of the BIA work in conjunction with the provision by reinforcing with strong language that the deemed trust does not exist following bankruptcy unless the amounts deducted are considered source deductions, i.e. income tax, Canada Pension Plan deductions or Employment Insurance deductions. [25]            In Century, the Supreme Court of Canada outlined the legislative history that led to the enactment of section 222(1.1) in 1992 (“the 1992 amendments”). ...

He contended that the whole review was based on the premise that the Congolese government was [translation] “autocratic, corrupt, favouring the emergence of a group of individuals who considered public offices to be sources of personal enrichment and where institutions were subverted to maintain the power of an elite.” ... [80]            I am of the view that Question A is not determinative since the applicant was in fact informed, early in the process, of the allegations against him and that he had ample opportunity to be heard on them. [81]            Questions F, G and H are related to an argument which the applicant raised for the first time at the hearing and was not considered by the Court. ...

., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835, [CBC], and R v Mentuck, 2001 SCC 76, the Supreme Court, at paragraph 53, reformulated the Dagenais/Mentuck test used in the criminal law context to state: A confidentiality order under Rule 151 should only be granted when: (a) such an order is necessary in order to prevent a serious risk to an important interest, including a commercial interest, in the context of litigation because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent the risk; and (b) the salutary effects of the confidentiality order, including the effects on the right of civil litigants to a fair trial, outweigh its deleterious effects, including the effects on the right to free expression, which in this context includes the public interest in open and accessible court proceedings. [32]   The Supreme Court also reiterated that three elements must be considered in the first part of the test, also known as the necessity stage: (1) the risk must be real and substantial, in that the risk is well grounded in the evidence and poses a serious threat to the interest in question; (2) the Court must be cautious in determining what constitutes an important interest, being “alive to the fundamental importance of the open court rule”; and (3) the Court must determine whether reasonable alternatives are available and must restrict the order as much as possible (Sierra Club at paras 54-57). [33]   The affected interests in Sierra Club were a commercial interest and the right to a fair trial. ... Proportionality [61]   As the requested order passes stage one of the Dagenais/Mentuck/Sierra Club test, it must now be considered whether the salutary effects of the order outweigh its deleterious effects. ...

The assumption is that Parliament considered that the method that comes first is the best approximation of value. ... Moreover, under basic administrative law principles, this would be considered a situation where an adequate alternative remedy exists, which is a factor that usually weighs against hearing an application for judicial review (Harelkin v University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; Strickland v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 37 at paras 40-45, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 713). [25]   The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the Federal Court’s lack of jurisdiction to review decisions made under the Act in Fritz Marketing Inc. v Canada, 2009 FCA 62, [2009] 4 FCR 314 [Fritz]. ...

This means that it is the courts’ role to characterize the relationship between the parties and to determine whether there is an employment relationship or, in other words, whether a person may be considered to be a “de facto employee” (for a general discussion, see Innis Christie, Employment Law in Canada, 4th ed by Peter Barnacle (Toronto: LexisNexis, loose-leaf), Chapter 2 [Christie, Employment Law]). ... If it disregards it, it would then be said that it applied the “wrong test”, and its decision would be considered unreasonable (see, for example, Alberta (Education)  v  Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 SCC 37 at paragraph 37, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 345; Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott, 2013 SCC 11 at paragraph 194, [2013] 1 S.C.R. 467). [40]   However, we often seek to apply a precedent to a situation that differs in some respects from that which gave rise to the precedent. ...