Search - considered

According to the second review report dated September 5, 2023, the Second Reviewer considered the documents on file which included information that the Applicant had not earned any employment or self-employment income in 2019 or in the 12 month period before his first application for the CERB. The Second Reviewer also considered the documents provided by the Applicant including the Government Posting. ...

Further, the Respondent argues that they were bound by the CRB Act, they considered the correct criteria, and they set out their calculations in their reasons for Decision (Flock v Canada (Attorney General), 2022 FC 305 [Flock] at para 20). [16] The CRB was introduced on October 2, 2020, by the CRB Act. ... Having considered all the factors for an award of costs, in the circumstances, I am exercising my discretion to not make an award of costs in this application.   ...

The alleged error arose when the Court considered events that took place after the appellant had been transformed in order to determine whether Messrs. ... The Court merely considered the evidence as a whole, including events after the appellant’s transformation, in order to decide the issues properly before it. [15] Finally, the appellant submits that the Tax Court breached its duty of procedural fairness by rejecting the appellant’s request to provide post-hearing submissions on this Court’s decision in MMV Capital. ...

HMQ 2021 TCC 35 at paragraph 38; and, d) Where the Court departs from the Informal Procedure Tariff, there must be sufficient grounds to justify the increased costs; consideration should be made of the lower cost and simpler process in the I nformal Procedure: Callaghan, supra, at paragraphs 64 – 65 and then the Court may award costs beyond the Tariff in Informal Procedure appeals provided: (i) such costs should mostly adhere to the Informal Procedure Tariff; (ii) any commensurate offers to settle should be considered; (iii) generally, difficult and complex cases should draw costs; (iv) complete success is not required; (v) the factors in subsection 147(3) of the General Procedure may be considered; and, (vi) good reasons for departing should be present. ...

Therefore, I have not considered it in my reasons. [23] I have considered the evidence regarding the distance between the condo and Mr. ...

The record demonstrates that the Officer considered the supplementary submissions. [26] In the context of decisions made under the CRB Act, the level of procedural fairness owed is at the low end of the spectrum (Ashurova at para 61, citing Cozak v Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 1571 at para 17). [27] The record illustrates that the Applicant was provided opportunities to give additional information in two separate phone calls on March 4 and April 17, 2024. [28] The Applicant asked and responded to questions. In my view, the Applicant knew the case he had to meet, and he was given a full and fair opportunity to make submissions, which the Officer considered. [29] In my view, the Decision was made in a procedurally fair manner. ...