Search - considered

Quantum alone does not remove this from a “normal” situation; the significance of a particular tax burden depends on each taxpayer and the appellant had a number of options available to reduce his interest exposure. [8]   The Minister’s delegate in this case considered the appellant’s submissions and overall pattern of behaviour both during and outside the relief period, and offered several reasons for his decision, including the appellant’s failure to act quickly, listen to his representatives or submit viable settlement offers. ...

Meyer argued that the amount of $79,089 he had withdrawn from his RRSP should not have been included in the calculation of his income for the purposes of the EI benefits’ repayment under section   145 of the EI Act, as benefits paid out of his RRSP, being of a different nature, should not be considered as income for the purposes of the EI Act. [5]   At the hearing, counsel for the Respondent referred to the relevant provisions of the ITA and the EI Act. ...

AND UPON finding that the Applicants have established that the application is not frivolous or vexatious and that there is a serious issue with respect to the circumstances giving rise to the RPD decision of February 1, 2019 finding that their refugee claims had been abandoned; AND UPON finding that the Applicants have established that they will suffer irreparable harm between now and the time that their application for judicial review is finally disposed of, in the event that they are removed from Canada without having had their risks on returning to Columbia properly considered; AND UPON considering that in the circumstances, the balance of convenience favours the Applicants when the serious issue raised and the related irreparable harm are balanced against the duty of the Minister to ensure the obligations of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are carried out; THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion is granted.   ...

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA   MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES   ORDER and reasons: ANNIS J.   ...

Disagreeing over the interpretation to be given to the agreement, or over unessential terms, does not void the initial agreement. [4]   The issue to be determined by the Judge was whether an objective bystander would have considered that the parties intended to bind themselves on sufficiently certain essential terms at the time the agreement was reached. ...

[5]   The Court has received the parties’ submissions and has read and considered them. [6]   The applicant submits that the only opportunity for the Court to order that proceedings be discontinued is at the time the section 40 order is made. ...

It is not transparent that the Officer considered the defence of an innocent mistake exception to misrepresentation. [16]   The defence of innocent misrepresentation is available in limited circumstances; see the decision in Alkhaldi v. ...

A party who has cross-examined the deponent of an affidavit filed in a motion may not subsequently file an affidavit in that motion, except with the consent of all other parties or with leave of the Court. [11]   The factors to be considered on a Rule 84(2) application are (Pfizer Canada Inc v Rhoxalpharma Inc, 2004 FC 1685 at para 16): The relevancy of the proposed affidavit The absence of prejudice to the opposing party Assistance to the Court The overall interests of justice [12]   The final factor includes consideration of whether the further evidence was available and/or could not be anticipated as being relevant at an earlier date (Janssen-Ortho Inc v Canada (Health), 2009 FC 1179 at para 9). [13]   The Plaintiff submits that the Further Supplemental Hart Affidavit contains evidence that is relevant to the issues on the Summary Judgment Motion, including the credibility of Mike Popowich. ...

“John Norris” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-3546-18   STYLE OF CAUSE: MUHAMMAD AFZAL WATTO v IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS OF CANADA REGULATORY COUNCIL AND MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION   MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: NORRIS J.   ...

Having considered the applicant’s travel on the Ocean Lady and whether this information was provided to the Sri Lankan authorities, I find that the Sri Lankan authorities would not perceive the applicant to be a supporter or member of the LTTE as a result of his travel on the Ocean Lady.   ...