Search - considered

DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENTS [15]      The defendant mentioned that the plaintiff's case was considered pursuant to the discretion conferred in s. 152(4.2) of the Act, and that the decision of March 9, 2001, was made in that context. [16]      The defendant asked the plaintiff's employer what its policy was on payment of automobile expenses. [17]      The employer informed the defendant that the plaintiff was unionized and he was paid a standard allowance under the collective agreement between the employer and his union. [18]      The defendant added that it was not up to her to assess all the conditions of the collective agreement, and unless the information received from the employer was completely unreasonable it was not this Court's function to intervene. [19]      Further, during the course of negotiating a collective agreement, it is very probable that the union will emphasize some areas more than others in order to benefit its employees. [20]      As to the decision in Yvon Royer v. ... Moreover, looking carefully at the sections of the collective agreement applicable here, I note that a remedy existed which the plaintiff could have used if he considered that the payment of the standard allowance for his travel was unreasonable. ... An allowance for travel expenses is not considered unreasonable merely because the employee's total expenses for business travel exceed the total travel allowances received in the year. ...

The Court must therefore be flexible in considering each criterion to ensure that justice is done and decide whether it would be in the best interests of justice to grant the extension of time (Alberta at para 45; Thompson at para 6; Larkman at para 62; MacDonald v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 2 at para 11). [18] Having considered the parties’ written representations, I am not satisfied that this is a situation in which I should exercise my discretion in favour of Clinique Gascon and in which it would be in the best interests of justice to grant an extension of time, because the evidence is wholly insufficient to satisfy the four factors that govern the exercise of my discretion. ... However, the reviewing court must refrain from “reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered” by the decision maker (Vavilov at paragraph 125). ... “Denis Gascon”   Judge   Certified true translation Michael Palles FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: 23-T-124 STYLE OF CAUSE: CLINIQUE GASCON INC. v HIS MAJESTY THE KING MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC PURSUANT TO SECTION 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: GASCON J. ...

Impairment of the accused's defence is not a factor to be considered under s. 11(b). ... The Queen, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; considered: Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972); Dickey v. ... This approach, too, was fully considered and rejected by the majority in Mills, supra. ...

Reviewing courts must also refrain from reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker.                     ... New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; considered: Public Service Alliance of Canada v. ... Reviewing courts must also refrain from reweighing and reassessing the evidence considered by the decision maker (Khosa, at para. 64). ...

The defendant also suggests that the plaintiffs have failed to give a reasonable explanation for the delay in asking for reconsideration. [10]      In response to the defendant's written representations, the plaintiffs filed and served a "supplemental record and written submissions in reply" which includes an affidavit and representations. [11]      That document is in some ways the record and the representations that should have been filed and served with the motion in the first place. [12]      The defendant filed and served another letter dated December 4, 2000 in which he strongly opposed the consideration of the supplemental record and written submissions in reply filed and served by the plaintiffs. [13]      The defendant suggests that this document is irregular because as a reply it should respond to items raised by the defendant and in fact, it raises many new arguments, particularly in paragraphs 4, 6, 10 and part of paragraph 5. [14]      I agree with the defendant that he is deprived of any opportunity to respond to this information even through cross-examination and therefore, it should not be considered by the Court. [15]      The defendant also suggests that the affidavit of Elvire Medieros was not included with the plaintiffs' motion materials, it was neither listed in the notice of motion as information which the plaintiffs intend to rely on and that this affidavit is improperly before the Court and should not be relied on. [16]      I totally agree with the defendant's submissions. [17]      In fact, if a party intends to bring a motion for an extension of time and also to be dispensed of the application of any rules, it should be explained in detail and the Court should be provided with valid reasons. [18]      In fact, it is not the case, here, and the motion for extension of time and to be dispensed to comply with Rule 364 is dismissed.                          ...

In the Act to amend the Act respecting insurance and other legislative provisions, the Québec legislature has declared that the ability to make a partial or total withdrawal of capital does not prevent an annuity contract from being considered as such.  ... However, because the provision is declaratory, it must be considered in the context of all the rules governing insurance and annuities.  ... What the declaratory legislation makes clear is that a stipulation which allows partial withdrawal also does not prevent the contract from being considered an annuity.  ...

It also avoids many of the pitfalls of the other tests advanced and furthers the policy objective of the interest deductibility provision aimed at capital accumulation and investment, as discussed in the next section of these reasons. [25]         It is clear from Ludco that the test must be applied at the time the investment is made, namely at the date the Appellant acquired the shares in Tim’s U.S., and furthermore that “all the circumstances must be considered”. [26]         The language of “all the circumstances must be considered” is very broad. In my view, such language cannot be consistent with any position that would suggest the use of the funds by the subsidiary or other members of the group cannot be considered nor that any series of transactions related to the direct investment cannot be considered. ... All circumstances must be considered. In this regard, it seems that the Respondent’s reference to “use” in paragraph 14(m) of the Amended Reply above discussed accords with this premise. [27]         Moreover, Ludco makes it clear in paragraphs 57 to 63 when discerning what is meant by “income” that subparagraph 20(1)(c)(i) “refers to income generally, that is an amount that would come into income for taxation purposes, not just net income”. ...

This motion for summary judgment has therefore been considered on the basis of the original statement of claim. ... Issues [24]   Having considered the submissions of the parties and the issues identified by the defendant, I have framed the issues as follows: 1. ... Consequently, they are not considered to be currency subject to the reporting requirements of the [Proceeds Act], but they are considered goods subject to the reporting requirements of the Customs Act. [34]     In advancing their respective positions, the parties in this action have similarly adopted the view that the coins in issue are to be characterized in a binary fashion. ...

According to the applicant, the Officer should have considered Quebec law, which requires the use of values in effect on the day of the judgment. ... Mosley” Judge Certified true translation This 30th day of July 2019 Margarita Gorbounova, Reviser FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: 16-T-6 STYLE OF CAUSE: DAVID LESSARD-GAUVIN v ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO, PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES ORDER AND REASONS: MOSLEY J. ...

. […] Although you incurred losses in your TFSA, losses are not considered as withdrawals. […] We carefully considered the circumstances and facts of your case in relation to the legislation that applies. ...