Search - considered

He maintains that the seeds were not considered cannabis by the seller and are instead considered hemp seeds, due to the lack of cannabinoids or THC, and in any event, they are in the embryonic stage and are not, therefore, a part of the cannabis plant. [13] The standard of review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at paras 10, 16, 23, 25 [Vavilov]. ... Maric’s arguments, the most important of which, for our purposes, was that the seeds should not be considered cannabis because they do not contain any cannabinoids. ... The CFIA’s statement that it could not determine whether the seeds were marijuana or hemp seeds is thus irrelevant to the Minister’s determination that the seeds were properly considered cannabis under the meaning of the Cannabis Act. ...

The reviewing Court may only intervene and set aside the Minister's discretionary decision if it was made in bad faith, if the decision-maker clearly ignored some relevant facts or considered irrelevant ones, or if the decision is contrary to law. [11]            Having reviewed the materials, it is my opinion that the Minister's decision must stand. In its decision, the Minister cited a number of factors that were considered and that weighed in against the applicant. ... The Minister also considered the fact that the applicant had left Canada with a tax balance owing and without providing a proper forwarding address. [12]            In light of the above, I am satisfied that the Minister fairly exercised the discretion granted by subsection 220(3.1) of the ITA and that the decision is not patently unreasonable. [13]            For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.                                                             ...

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’’. ...