Search - considered

Rosianu of its decision to “dismiss the complaint because having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, further inquiry is not warranted.” [15]   In the absence of stated reasons for the CHRC’s decision, the report prepared by the CHRC investigator [the Investigator] who recommended dismissal of the complaint can be considered to constitute the CRHC’s reasons [the Decision]: Phipps v Canada Post Corporation, 2016 FCA 117, at para 6; Sketchley v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 404, at para 37. [16]   The Decision began by noting that the CHRC does not determine whether discrimination has actually occurred. ...

Had the defendant considered it a genuine issue, she would have raised it then or, at least, far earlier than she did.   ...

Fleury did not match the profile of an at-risk woman in Haiti and that her travels over the previous three (3) years were not reflective of the travels of someone who would be considered to be at risk. ...

The Registrar therefore considered only the affidavit dated April 4, 2016, and the attached designs. [11]   The Registrar noted that the applicant failed to specify if “the use” of the Mark since June 1, 2010, was continuous, or at least in such a manner as to include uses of the Mark between January 5, 2013, and January 5, 2016. ...

., 2006 SCC 22 at para 40 [Mattel]; United Grain Growers Ltd v Lang Michener, 2001 FCA 66 at para 8); and (3) the Board’s decision is neither unreasonable nor incorrect. [22]   With respect to the leave to amend, Industria pleads that the Board properly considered the relevant criteria. ...

The RPD also considered Ms. Huang’s testimony at her first RPD hearing that she did not feel it was safe to request her Chinese medical records from Canada, but it found this explanation unreasonable, finding she would be at no additional risk from the PSB who already knew she was in Canada. ...

These findings must also be considered in the context of the evidence presented by the Minister which suggested that the applicant was in fact a South African national named Meshack Makhubu (DOB March 10, 1975), evidence to which the applicant was unable to provide a credible rebuttal. [22]   Section 106 of the IRPA expressly directs the RPD to “take into account, with respect to the credibility of a claimant, whether the claimant possesses acceptable documentation establishing identity, and if not, whether they have provided a reasonable explanation for the lack of documentation or have taken reasonable steps to obtain the documentation.”   ...

The existence of other potential plaintiffs, particularly those who would have standing as of right, is relevant, but the practical prospects of their bringing the matter to court at all or by equally or more reasonable and effective means should be considered in light of the practical realities, not theoretical possibilities. … • The potential impact of the proceedings on the rights of others who are equally or more directly affected should be taken into account. ...

We considered his skills and abilities as outlined above.   We had already approved his leave – so there was no cost to KF in maintaining his employment. [30]   It is apparent from the investigator’s conclusions set out in paragraphs 17 and 18, above, that she accepted KF Aerospace’s explanation for the layoffs at the Hamilton facility.   ...

The legal costs associated with successfully bringing or defending a lawsuit are considered as a form of damage that calls for compensation. ...