Search - convention

It came into force in 1984 and in Canada is implemented by the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, 1984, SC 1984, c 20. [7]                Both countries have designated “Competent Authorities” to deal with claims under the Treaty. ... Tax Convention (1980)....We have reviewed the circumstances of this case and regret that we cannot for the reasons explained below, issue the refund of tax requested. [42]            CGI was informed of this decision on January 8, 2015, during a telephone conversation between Mr. ... The Treaty states: “the competent authorities of the Contracting States shall endeavor to resolve by mutual agreement any difficulties or doubts arising as to the interpretation or application of the Convention” (Art. ...

Nature of the Matter [1]                 This is an application for judicial review, pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the  Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 [IRPA], of a decision rendered by the Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] on January 3, 2017 finding that the Applicants are not exempt from the Safe Third Country Agreement [STCA], and are therefore ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(e) of the IRPA to claim Convention refugee status in Canada [Decision]. ... Richard Bell” Judge APPENDIX A Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27: Ineligibility Irrecevabilité 101 (1) A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division if 101 (1) La demande est irrecevable dans les cas suivants: […] […] (e) the claimant came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country designated by the regulations, other than a country of their nationality or their former habitual residence; or e) arrivée, directement ou indirectement, d’un pays désigné par règlement autre que celui dont il a la nationalité ou dans lequel il avait sa résidence habituelle; […] […] Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-2007: Designation — United States Désignation — États-Unis 159.3 The United States is designated under paragraph 102(1)(a) of the Act as a country that complies with Article 33 of the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture, and is a designated country for the purpose of the application of paragraph 101(1)(e) of the Act. 159.3 Les États-Unis sont un pays désigné au titre de l’alinéa 102(1)a) de la Loi à titre de pays qui se conforme à l’article 33 de la Convention sur les réfugiés et à l’article 3 de la Convention contre la torture et sont un pays désigné pour l’application de l’alinéa 101(1)e) de la Loi. ...

Relevant provisions [18]   The following provisions are relevant: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 Convention refugee Définition de réfugié 96 A Convention refugee is a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, 96 A qualité de réfugié au sens de la Convention — le réfugié — la personne qui, craignant avec raison d’être persécutée du fait de sa race, de sa religion, de sa nationalité, de son appartenance à un groupe social ou de ses opinions politiques : (a) is outside each of their countries of nationality and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of each of those countries; or a) soit se trouve hors de tout pays dont elle a la nationalité et ne peut ou, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de chacun de ces pays; (b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of their former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of that fear, unwilling to return to that country. b) soit, si elle n’a pas de nationalité et se trouve hors du pays dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, ne peut ni, du fait de cette crainte, ne veut y retourner. Person in need of protection Personne à protéger 97 (1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally 97 (1) A qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et serait personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la nationalité ou, si elle n’a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, exposée : (a) to a danger, believed on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention Against Torture; or a) soit au risque, s’il y a des motifs sérieux de le croire, d’être soumise à la torture au sens de l’article premier de la Convention contre la torture; (b) to a risk to their life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if b) soit à une menace à sa vie ou au risque de traitements ou peines cruels et inusités dans le cas suivant : (i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country, (i) elle ne peut ou, de ce fait, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de ce pays, (ii) the risk would be faced by the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other individuals in or from that country, (ii) elle y est exposée en tout lieu de ce pays alors que d’autres personnes originaires de ce pays ou qui s’y trouvent ne le sont généralement pas, (iii) the risk is not inherent or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted international standards, and (iii) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de sanctions légitimes — sauf celles infligées au mépris des normes internationales — et inhérents à celles-ci ou occasionnés par elles, (iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care. ...

Mais de là il ne faut pas conclure que toute convention dans laquelle se rencontre cet élément constitue nécessairement une société. ... Speaking of the rule of interpretation where the language of a convention is doubtful or obscure, in Dufort v. ... Where the language of a private convention is doubtful or obscure, to quote Huc, Commentaire du Code Civil, vol. 7, Art. 175, ‘ le juge doit, avant tout, rechercher quelle a été la commune intention des parties pourvu cependant que cette intention paraisse douteuse. ...

Mais de là il ne faut pas conclure que toute convention dans laquelle se rencontre cet élément constitue nécessairement une société. ... Speaking of the rule of interpretation where the language of a convention is doubtful or obscure, in Dufort v. ... Comme aussi l’exécution donnée par les parties à une convention en sera souvent le meilleur interprète.’ ...

In other words, the Court is without basis to even be in a position to consider that exception in the present case. [27] One more point the Court would like to add before addressing the present situation is the potential scope of the Canada-India Tax Convention [6] in a case like the present appeal, and determine whether it could be of any assistance to the Appellant. More specifically, Article 18 of the Canada-India Tax Convention states that pensions arising in a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State, and for that purpose a pension arises in a Contracting State when the payer is that State itself, a political subdivision, a local authority or a resident of that State. [28] Unfortunately, the interest in such provision in the present case does not last long. The reason is that the ITA is structured such as to reflect a tax relief such as under Article 18 of the Canada-India Tax Convention only in computing the taxable income of a taxpayer, not in computing the income. ...

Rejecting her claim because she lacked credibility on key elements, the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB] found the Applicant is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection as defined in sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. ... Oria-Arebun was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [17]   In confirming the RPD’s conclusion, the RAD nonetheless disagreed with several of the RPD’s credibility findings. ... Canada confers refugee protection upon individuals who are found to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection: IRPA ss 95-97. ...

Where a taxpayer has served notice of objection to an assessment under section 165, he may appeal to the Tax Court of Canada to have the assessment vacated or varied after either (a) the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed, or (b) 90 days have elapsed after service of the notice of objection and the Minister has not notified the taxpayer that he has vacated or confirmed the assessment or reassessed; but no appeal under this section may be instituted after the expiration of 90 days from the day notice has been mailed to the taxpayer under section 165 that the Minister has confirmed the assessment or reassessed. 4 70.(1) A person who claims to be a Convention refugee and has been informed in writing by the Minister pursuant to subsection 45(5) that he is not a Convention refugee may, within such period of time as prescribed, make an application to the Board for a redetermination of the claim that he is a Convention refugee. 40.(1) A person who claims to be a Convention refugee and who has been informed in writing by the Minister pursuant to subsection 45(5) of the Act that he is not a Convention refugee may, within fifteen days after he is so informed, make an application to the Board pursuant to section 70 of the Act for a redetermination of his claim that he is a Convention refugee by delivering such an application in writing to an immigration officer or by filing it with the Board. 5 Subsection 35(1) of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52 provided: 35.(1) Subject to the regulations, an inquiry by an adjudicator may be reopened at any time by that adjudicator or by any other adjudicator for the hearing and receiving of any additional evidence or testimony and the adjudicator who hears and receives such evidence or testimony confirm, amend or reverse any decision previously given by an adjudicator. ...

The debt was incurred to enable Ontario Inc. to fund an investment in a convention centre project organized and operated as a limited partnership of which Ontario Inc. was the general partner. ... This was portrayed by both witnesses as a very important issue from the outset of the convention centre project. [9]      Mr. ... A review of the exhibits tendered suggests that the limited partnership had activities and holdings unrelated to the convention centre project which were financed by advances of $2,091,385 from related parties. ...

The RPD found that the Applicant did not have a nexus to a Convention ground of complaint, and lacked a forward facing personalized risk. ... (2) Is there a nexus to one of the Convention grounds in the definition of a Convention refugee? ... The four issues raised by the Applicant are findings related to whether the Applicant provided sufficient evidence to establish a nexus to a Convention ground and/or his alleged personalized risk. ...