Search - considered

The Court of Appeal in Winnicki v Canada (Human Rights Commission), 2007 FCA 52 at para 17, 155 ACWS (3d) 66, described the factors to be considered as: 1.   ...

Conduct Affecting the Duration of the Proceeding [13]   If a witness who is within the control of a party fails to testify in an honest and straight forward manner, the resulting delay in the proceedings is a factor that should be considered when awarding costs. ...

Mr Azeem maintains that the interests of judicial economy would not be compromised by deciding a case that raises important, albeit moot, legal questions. [9]   Mr Azeem’s submissions address two of the three factors that should be considered in deciding whether to deal with a moot application: an ongoing adversarial relationship, and judicial economy (Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342). ...

She notes that there is only one reference to the Guideline in the decision, at paragraph 19, stating that [translation] “the panel has considered Chairperson’s Guideline 4: Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-related Persecution ”. ...

Furthermore, the IAD also considered the best interests of the other two children (see for instance, paragraphs 35 and 37-39 of the Decision). [13]   All factors in the H&C analysis were found to be positive. ...

This is followed up by expression of concerns about kidnapping of the children in both his wife’s and sister-in-law’s letters, while no mention of which was made in the BOC. [13]   In his Basis of Claim (BOC), he stated with (my emphasis) that “ unknown person s have been to my in-laws’ homes to look for me” and that she would state that “my wife and children were living in the home to take care of her because she was not well”. [14]   Finally, the panel Member noted that there was no evidence in any of the documents for the Applicant’s testimony where the alleged attackers on September 9, 2016 were part of any group that was mentioned by the Applicant, who indicated he did not know who the assailants were. [15]   The panel Member ultimately concluded that there was no credible or reliable evidence that anyone had been seeking the Applicant since the one incident September 2016 and that on the balance of probabilities no one would be seeking him out if returned to Pakistan. [16]   The panel Member also considered the alternative conclusion that Islamabad was a reasonable internal flight alternative (IFA). ...

See, for example, Malaba v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 84 at paragraph 11; Ntatoulou v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 173 at paragraph 14. [16]   In this case, the RPD’s brief reasons do not allow me to determine whether in fact it considered all of the explanations given by Mr. ...

The record reveals the Officer considered the Applicant’s circumstances fully, relying on current country information and the absence of facts to support the Applicant’s claims. [21]   The Officer’s decision was justifiable, transparent, and intelligible, falling within a range of outcomes defensible in respect of the facts and law. ...

It did hear his submissions and has further considered. He remains misguided in his view. ...

They cannot be considered by this Court because judicial review applications are normally decided based on the record that was before the administrative decision-maker and, only in exceptional circumstances, may a party introduce new evidence before the reviewing court. ...