Search - considered

The respondent contended, as here, that these are humanitarian and compassionate factors to be considered in an application under section 25 of IRPA and not in a pre-removal risk assessment. [31]   Evidence of the legislative intent of paragraph 97(1)(b)(iv) was provided to the court in Singh through the clause explanatory notes submitted to Pariliament for the consideration of Bill C-11 [An Act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, 1st Sess., 37th Parl., 2001], subsequently enacted as IRPA. ...

The quotes as obtained were approved by the Owners. [9]   In the course of performing their work, some of the workers contracted through Groupe Ocean Inc. considered that substantial additional work was necessary. ...

As this Court has repeatedly held, evidence must be considered for what it does say, not for what it does not say (Mahmud v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] FCJ No 729 (FC) at para 11; Sitnikova v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 464 at paras 22-24).   ...

A couple must cohabit for at least one year in order to be considered common-law partners under the OASA, and that is why Service Canada sent a Statutory Declaration of Common-Law form in November 2010, which the applicants did not return. [37]   The respondent also argues that the applicants did not inform the Minister of the change in their marital status in a timely manner. ...

Otherwise, they do not postdate the RPD’s rejection in terms of their content. [38]   With respect to the alleged corroborative evidence some of which was not referred to by the RPD and the RAD, the Board is presumed to have considered it. ...

Rosianu of its decision to “dismiss the complaint because having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, further inquiry is not warranted.” [15]   In the absence of stated reasons for the CHRC’s decision, the report prepared by the CHRC investigator [the Investigator] who recommended dismissal of the complaint can be considered to constitute the CRHC’s reasons [the Decision]: Phipps v Canada Post Corporation, 2016 FCA 117, at para 6; Sketchley v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 404, at para 37. [16]   The Decision began by noting that the CHRC does not determine whether discrimination has actually occurred. ...

Had the defendant considered it a genuine issue, she would have raised it then or, at least, far earlier than she did.   ...

Fleury did not match the profile of an at-risk woman in Haiti and that her travels over the previous three (3) years were not reflective of the travels of someone who would be considered to be at risk. ...

The Registrar therefore considered only the affidavit dated April 4, 2016, and the attached designs. [11]   The Registrar noted that the applicant failed to specify if “the use” of the Mark since June 1, 2010, was continuous, or at least in such a manner as to include uses of the Mark between January 5, 2013, and January 5, 2016. ...

., 2006 SCC 22 at para 40 [Mattel]; United Grain Growers Ltd v Lang Michener, 2001 FCA 66 at para 8); and (3) the Board’s decision is neither unreasonable nor incorrect. [22]   With respect to the leave to amend, Industria pleads that the Board properly considered the relevant criteria. ...