Search - considered

Generally, all means available within the legislation should be exhausted before remission relief is considered, i.e. filing a notice of objection, and/or a court appeal, or requesting any recourse under a tax convention (at p 5). [23]   Each remission request is to be considered on its own merits.   ... The Guidelines indicate at page 12 that remission on this basis will be considered if the taxpayer “could not reasonably have been expected to initiate timely actions to avoid or minimize tax (or collect and remit the tax…)” and “if CRA officials made an error in assessing tax, the error must have been recognizable as such at the time of the assessment (on the assumption that all relevant facts were known), and not in light of subsequent events, such as a court decision that reverses the standard interpretation upon which the assessment is based”. [25]   Here, the crux of the Applicant’s argument with respect to certain communications between Ms. ... Here, that did not occur. [38]   Rather, the Minister’s Delegate considered whether the Applicant had demonstrated that it could not have reasonably been expected to take action within the required time limits to resolve the problem through the statutory path.   ...

The Respondent states that Ms Martel considered the Applicant’s request on its own merits and the record before her and that her partial grant of the relief requested was well within the range of acceptable outcomes. ... This argument was not considered by Ms Martel. However, I find she committed no error in this regard. [32]   As stated above, the Third Request Letter requested interest relief in respect of identified periods and for specific delays on the part of the CRA. ... It is apparent that she was fully aware of the Applicant’s history with the CRA in respect of the Taxation Years and considered the circumstances relevant to the Applicant’s request fairly. ...

Chen always considered her two illegitimate sons as burdens and considered them a shame. [6]   The Officer remarked that, even after she got divorced in 2011, Ms. ... Chen’s affidavit will not be considered because it does not fall within any of the recognized exceptions (as stated in Association of Universities at para 20). ... As it provides general background and assists the Court’s understanding of the issues relevant to this judicial review, it will be considered. [23]   Ms. ...

The Applicant requests that the Court quash the Commission’s decision and refer his complaint back to the Commission, to be considered along with additional records dating from December 2018, which he attached to his Affidavit. ... The Applicant interprets this to mean that his materials were not considered and that the investigation was not sufficiently thorough. [28]   The Applicant misunderstands the Commission’s process in assessing complaints. ... Even if the Applicant had also disclosed this information to the investigator in the investigative interview, it is clear that the investigator considered his submissions. ...

It confirmed having considered and applied the Chairperson’s Guidelines 4 with respect to Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution [Chairperson’s Guidelines 4]. [9]   The RPD rejected Ms. ... The RPD considered objective evidence on the treatment of women in South Africa, as well as the fact that Ms. ... The RAD properly considered the VAST letter’s recommendations, which do not contain information to the effect that Ms. ...

Second, the RAD agreed with the RPD that, if the Applicant was in the danger he alleged, he would not have delayed his departure. [21]   The Applicant’s sur place claim: The RAD considered whether the Applicant’s political activities in Canada created a sufficient political profile to bring him to the attention of the Ethiopian authorities. ... I have reviewed the record and the RAD’s analysis of the Applicant’s allegations and find that the reasonable person would not conclude that the RPD member lacked impartiality and would not decide the case fairly. [28]   The RAD reviewed the audio recording of the three RPD hearings and considered the Applicant’s allegations regarding the manner and extent of the questioning by the RPD. ... The application of the test was recently considered by Justice McVeigh in Gebremedhin v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2017 FC 497 at para 28: [28] The legal threshold for a sur place claim should not be confused with the standard of proof. ...

Contrary to the allegation that these documents had not been considered by the RPD, the RAD found instead, in the reasons given by the RPD, evidence that those elements were considered and therefore were not arbitrarily excluded. [21]   The RAD therefore concluded that the Refugee Protection Division had correctly decided the request made. ... The applicant may not agree with the conclusion drawn, but it is based on sound evidence presented to the RPD and considered by the RAD. ... Such an allegation cannot be considered without some kind of evidence. ...

On this basis, the Minister’s delegate concluded that the section 44(1) report was well-founded. [12]   The Minister’s delegate then considered whether an exclusion order should be issued.   ... He also provides a detailed account of his personal circumstances, including circumstances which he submits should have been considered by the Minister’s delegate in deciding whether or not to issue an exclusion order.   ... On the other hand, none of that new information may be considered when assessing the reasonableness of the Minister’s delegate’s decision since that would be tantamount to substituting my decision on the merits for his. ...

This Motion was considered at the hearing of the judicial review application.   ... However, she does not discuss hearsay and does not state that untested hearsay may be used to prove conduct occurred. [27]   The general rule is that hearsay evidence should not be considered. ... Letendre gas can only be considered “vote buying” if it was done on the condition that she vote for the Chief in the upcoming election. ...

Idrizi was therefore not considered a spouse under section 4(1) of the IRPR, he was excluded from the spouse or common law partner in Canada class as defined by paragraph 124(a) of the IRPR.   ... Thus, despite the fact that the amended provision separates the primary purpose and genuineness tests and treats each as sufficient in and of itself to warrant a finding that a person is not considered a spouse, there can still be a close connection between the two in a given case.   ... The failure to consider such evidence can be a reviewable error. [31]   In the present case, the officer wrote that “Regulation 4 states that a foreign national shall not be considered a spouse of a person if the marriage is not genuine and was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring any status or privilege under the Act.”   ...