Search - considered

Canada Customs & Revenue Agency, 2001 DTC 5360. [12]            In this case, however, the Court is not being asked to re-weigh the factors considered by the Minister's delegate, and to come to a different conclusion. ... What is in issue is whether Dorothea's argument was properly considered by the Minister's delegate. ... The only reference to Dorothea's position is the statement of the Minister's delegate that he had considered the facts referred to in Dorothea's February 16, 2004 correspondence. ...

Without agreement on the part of the employer that their testimony is to be considered representative of each PM-03 investigator/auditor position across its entire enterprise, the effect of any relief granted could only be the development of a position-specific Work Description which comprises "a complete and current statement of the duties and responsibilities" of each individual grievor's position; in short, balkanization of the employer's generic work descriptions.... ... With respect to the interpretation of this section by the Board, the Court considered that aspect of the decision to involve a "heightened precedential value" which pointed towards less deference. ... " [14]            The other factors in the pragmatic and functional analysis, such as the absence of a privative clause, the expertise of the tribunal, the purpose of the Act and the nature of the question have been considered at length in the above-named cases concerning adjudication under the PSSRA and I need not repeat them. [15]            I therefore conclude that the standard of review for the decision as I interpret it is that of patent unreasonability. ...

I have considered the Agency's position with respect to the fairness provision and made a thorough and impartial review of the facts and representations that you have submitted to support your request. ... The courts have the responsibility to ensure that the taxpayer is heard, and that he is entitled to a decision that is the outcome of a fair process in the course of which the submissions he is raising were indeed considered (see Courchesne v. ...     [16]            In this case it appears that all of the facts on file were properly considered. ...

Interest shown includes a recovery for refund interest previously given on a refund which is now considered as unwarranted. ... My considered answer to this, as may be readily gleaned from my references to the numerous documents exchanged between the parties, is no. ... My considered view is that the taxpayer knew, or at least should have known.      ...

  [11]            In addition, the Defendant submits that even though the Shilling case had been decided the Plaintiffs carried on with their appeals, that none of the other NLS/OI employees considered themselves bound by Shilling and that each employee wanted their individual facts and particular circumstances presented on appeal to be heard individually by the Tax Court of Canada ...   [14]            Although I am of the opinion that the submissions contained in the letter of April 27, 2010 should not be considered as they are outside the provisions of the Direction of February 12, 2010, it is of little consequence as the matter addressed in the letter is not determinative of the public interest issue ... At paragraph 89 of the Reasons for Judgment and Judgment the Court finds: The issue of NLS’s operation and tax exempt status of its employees was considered by the Federal Court of Appeal in Shilling. ...

  [11] Thus, it seems clear that the best interests of the children were considered. ... In her decision, Madam Justice L’Heureux‑Dubé explicitly recognized that the H&C decision is an important one since it not only affects the future of individuals’ lives in a fundamental manner, but “it may also have an important impact on the lives of any Canadian children of the person whose humanitarian and compassionate application is being considered, since they may be separated from one of their parents and/or uprooted from their country of citizenship, where they have settled and have connections” (paragraph 15). ... The other arguments put forward by the applicants are vague and lack a factual basis, which is not surprising, considering that the Officer’s written reasons were seemingly not considered when the stay motion was written ...

Zylka’s request was considered by a collections officer in Vancouver. ...   [8]                This second request was considered by a different collections officer, who reviewed Mr. ... The officer’s recommendation was considered and confirmed by a “fairness committee” of CRA managers ...

MacLean, acting on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) set out the following reasons for denying the request:   Our review has carefully considered all file documentation and your comments with regard to your request in relation to the applicable legislation. ... Further, s. 10 of the Guidelines sets out a non‑exhaustive list of factors that “will” be considered, as follows: 10.               The following factors will be considered when determining whether or not the Department will cancel or waive interest or penalties:     (a)                 whether or not the taxpayer or employer has a history of compliance with tax obligations;     (b)                whether or not the taxpayer or employer has knowingly allowed a balance to exist upon which arrears interest has accrued;     (c)                 whether or not the taxpayer or employer has exercised a reasonable amount of care and has not been negligent or careless in conducting their affairs under the self-assessment system;       (d)                whether or not the taxpayer or employer has acted quickly to remedy any delay or omission.   10.               ...

. … […] (4) The Federal Court may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal (4) Les mesures prévues au paragraphe (3) sont prises si la Cour fédérale est convaincue que l’office fédéral, selon le cas: … […] (d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it; d) a rendu une décision ou une ordonnance fondée sur une conclusion de fait erronée, tirée de façon abusive ou arbitraire ou sans tenir compte des éléments dont il dispose; [18]            However, these documents were not available when the 2 nd Decision was made in January 2017 and/or the facts stated were already known and considered. The matter of PTSD discussed in the two doctors’ letters, which post-date the 2 nd Decision, was known and had been considered. ... The death of the Applicant's son was likewise known and considered and had been so in the 1 st Decision which granted relief on that ground. ...

The Board considered the applicant’s criminal record. [9]   On May 1, 2018, the applicant filed his memorandum of fact and law. ... His submissions also referenced the argument that the Board should not have arrived at a finding of fact that contradicted those of Parent J. [22]   The Board clearly stated that it considered the applicant’s submissions. ... It might have been preferable for the Board to indicate clearly that it had considered that question, but I do not consider this to be necessary. ...