Search - considered

Eslabra advanced numerous submissions directed to the unreasonableness of the decision; however, the heart of the matter is whether the officer considered all the relevant evidence and the entirety of Ms. ... [emphasis added] [10]   Counsel for the Minister submitted that the final sentence above indicates that the officer considered the circumstances arising from CIC’s (now IRCC) mistake.   I am not persuaded, notwithstanding this creative reading, that the officer considered the CIC decision and its consequences.   ...

The officer properly considered Ms Hidalgo’s non-disclosure and the best interests of the child. ... The officer reasonably considered the significance of the non-disclosure. ... The officer also considered the evidence relating to the child’s health and documentary evidence about the conditions in the Philippines. ...

[5]   Having considered the submissions I am not convinced the Officer committed any error warranting the Court’s intervention. ... It appears the removal was then rescheduled. [8]   In considering the request for deferral of removal on February 1, 2019, the Officer reviewed and considered the actions taken on January 29. ... Cao’s evidence was considered and the Officer was entitled to rely on the information provided by the CBSA Liaison Officer in Peru. [10]   It was not unreasonable for the Officer to conclude that upon removal from Canada Ms. ...

I am of the view that the days in the month of August should not be considered in calculating the 30-day period. ... When the motion was considered by me the defence had been filed and the motion must fail. ... If the notice of motion was to be considered an application for leave, the 14 days notice required would not have expired until after the statement of defence was filed. ...

Justice Heald sitting in the Trial Division of this Court considered the meaning of paragraph 175(3)(a) and concluded that the paragraph permitted the joinder of appeals only after the appeals had been instituted seriatim. ... I have considered the cases cited to me by plaintiffs’ counsel in an attempt to distinguish L & M Wood Products and note that they involve attempts to involuntarily join parties and not join causes of action. ... Finally, I have considered the argument of the plaintiffs that the pleading is not fatally defective. ...

Having carefully considered the evidence of Philip William Goldman as to the nature of the business of the appellant, its method of carrying on business, the facts of the subject contracts in this case, and generally and the documentary evidence, the conclusions I have reached on the facts of this case are as follows: The genesis contract, so to speak, is Exhibit 2 dated June 5, 1969. and paragraphs 1 and 2 of it are of predominant significance. ... All the contracts must be read together and considered as one transaction for the purpose of determining their legal significance for tax purposes. ...

The Minister originally objected to Exhibits A, E, F and G, being considered as they were not before the decision maker. ... Singh to pay the tax. [32] The Minister considered all of Ms. Singh’s arguments and explained why each of them was rejected. [33] The Minister considered the fact that Ms. ... Singh’s request for reconsideration was thoroughly considered along with her prior submissions for the two previous requests. [40] Ms. ...

Of these two objections, however, the latter no longer needs to be considered since the parties agreed at the trial that the net profit made by the appellant from racing the horse George Royal amounted to $9,083.81 in 1964, $28,543.13 in 1965 and $28,114.26 in 1966. Consequently, only the first objection raised by the appellant remains to be considered. ... He who purchases and later sells a commodity at a profit prima facie acts as a trader; for this reason, even if this transaction is an isolated one, it can very easily be considered as an “adventure or concern in the nature of trade’’. ...

The Respondent asserts that the CRA considered the Applicant’s medical and financial hardship but reasonably found that they did not warrant relief. [16] I agree with the Respondent. [17] I first note that the Applicant’s new evidence will not be considered in this judicial review. In applications for judicial review, “only the information that was before the decision-maker can be considered” (PPSC Enterprises Limited v. ... In my view, the CRA “account[ed] for the evidence before it” and considered the “concerns raised by” the Applicant (Vavilov at paras 126, 127). ...

Having considered all of the above I am satisfied that you were considered for all staffing actions and that you did not meet the minimum requirements for any of the staffing actions.  ... Counsel submitted that the situation is analogous to that considered by Justice Dawson of this court in Anderson v. ... Only applicants who meet the pre-requisites will be considered for assessment, which is the second stage of the selection process ...