Search - convention

These issues included: A) Contract revenues B) Reimbursements C) Calculation fees D) Carrying on business in Canada; and E) Permanent establishment [12]            By letter dated October 16, 2001 the applicant refused to allow permission for the respondent to carry on the audit. [13]            On December 6, 2001, a Notice of Requirement to provide foreign-based information or documents (the "Requirement") was issued by the respondent. [14]            The applicant submits that the Requirement is far reaching and argues that the Requirement includes information and documentation which has no link to the determination of the applicant's liability to Canadian taxation, if any. [15]            The applicant underlines that, as a UK resident, it has had very limited activities in Canada; that Article XXIV of the Canada-UK Tax Convention provides for exchange of information between the competent authorities of both contracting states, a requirement to the carrying out of the provisions of the Convention; further, that at no time did the officials of the CCRA communicate with the UK tax authorities with respect to any matter pertaining to the applicant's activities. [16]            The applicant concludes that the CCRA is in a position to determine precisely the gross income earned by the applicant without having to proceed with an audit. [17]            In reply, the respondent argues that it is not possible to audit the applicant without access to all of its books and records for the period being audited; that it is impossible to determine the extent of the applicant's activities in Canada. [18]            Moreover, the respondent submits that the fact the CCRA did not communicate with the UK tax authorities is irrelevant since there is no requirement of the CCRA to apply other information gathering techniques prior to issuing the Requirement in question. [19]            The respondent through one of its officials, one David Hunter, responsible for external audit clearly explained to the applicant the dilemma with which the Agency was faced after receiving an income tax return filed by the applicant. ...

The responsibility of the manufacturer for the contractor is also outlined in the “Convention collective de travail” between the Montreal Dress and Sportswear Manufacturers’ Guild and the Joint Commission (Comité conjoint de Montreal, Union des ouvriers de la robe), and the Union Internationale des Ouvriers du Vêtement pour Dames, which stipulates as follows: 90.02 Each Employer, a member of the Guild, shall be jointly and severally responsible together with each contractor and sub-contractor to which each such Employer shall furnish work falling under the jurisdiction of this Agreement, for the payment of wages, and for payments into the Welfare Funds, and for due compliance with working conditions, the whole as set out in the present Agreement. Article 50.01 of the Convention provides that the manufacturer, described as the “Employer-Supplier” who supplies a contractor with work to be performed by such contractor called “Employer-Contractor”, shall, at the request of the Union, make two separate payments for such work to the contractor, that is 90% to be paid to the contractor and the balance of 10% payable to the Trustees of the Union Welfare Funds. ...

Justice Simon Noël   BETWEEN: MARIA GUADALUPE DOMINGUEZ BANDO Applicant and   THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT   [1]                This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) on February 6, 2007, according to which the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA).   ... No. 878, 2003 FCT 673). [...]     7     The onus is on the applicant to prove that there is a serious possibility he will be subject to persecution everywhere in Argentina, in accordance with the principle aptly stated by the Federal Court of Appeal in Thirunavukkarasu, above, at page 595:   On the one hand, in order to prove a claim to Convention refugee status, as I have indicated above, claimants must prove on a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility that they will be subject to persecution in their country. ...

Decision [8]                On February 22, 2016, the RPD refused the applicant’s claim for refugee protection on the grounds that he is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. [9]                From a procedural perspective, the RPD pointed out that the applicant chose not to retain counsel, as he felt he could present his claim for refugee protection on his own. [10]            During the applicant’s testimony at the hearing, the RPD identified a significant omission in his story, as presented on the Basis of Claim Form (BOC), which considerably weakened his credibility. [11]            The RPD found that the applicant’s claim for refugee protection stemmed from a fear related to criminality and not to Convention grounds under section 96 of the IRPA and that therefore, it fell under paragraph 97(1)(b) of the IRPA. [12]            The RPD found that the applicant did not meet the exceptional criteria in subparagraph 97(1)(b)(ii) of the IRPA, in that he did not face a personalized risk from the Maras-13 in El Salvador, but rather a generalized risk shared by the entire Salvadoran population. ...

In a decision dated November 21, 2018 [the Decision], the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada found that the Applicants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, with the determinative issue being credibility. ... In the Decision that is the subject of this application for judicial review, the RPD again denied their claim, concluding that the Applicants were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. ...

Justice Lafrenière BETWEEN: BADRI MOHAMED GOD, BOUHO AHMED HOUSSEIN, MOHAMED-AMIN BADRI MAHAMOUD, ABDOURAHMAN BADRI MAHAMOUD, ISRA BADRI MAHAMOUD Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1]   The Applicants seek judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated January 2, 2019 confirming the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] that the Applicants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection in Canada under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. [2]   On November 13, 2019, I gave oral reasons for granting the present application for judicial review. ... Houssein did not relate an independent story that required separate analysis. [15]   The Respondent maintains that it was open to the RAD to find that none of the Applicants are Convention refugees or persons in need of protection if Mr. ...

INTRODUCTION [1]   Sarbjit Singh is seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD], dated February 15, 2019, dismissing his appeal and confirming that he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection within the meaning of sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act]. ... Singh was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. ...

INTRODUCTION [1]   Louinet Lainé is applying for judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] on February 26, 2019, dismissing her appeal, confirming the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] and determining that he is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. ... Lainé had not established that there was a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground, or that, on a balance of probabilities, he would be personally subjected to a danger of torture, a risk to his life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if he returns to Haiti, primarily because it did not believe his risk history. [5]   The RPD is satisfied with Mr. ...

Secondly, if there was a benefit received by the plaintiff by virtue of paragraph 7(1)(a) of the Act, then such benefit was of a capital nature and therefore exempt by virtue of Article VIII of the Canada- US Tax Convention. ... Alternatively, plaintiff contends that if the benefit were taxable income pursuant to the provisions of section 7, then such benefit is of a capital nature and therefore exempt from taxation in Canada by virtue of Article VIII of the Canada-US Tax Convention, which reads: Article VIII Gains derived in one of the contracting States from the sale or exchange of capital assets by a resident or a corporation or other entity of the other contracting States shall be exempt from taxation in the former State, provided such resident or corporation or other entity has no permanent establishment in the former State. ...

The applicant also claimed that he was a person in need of protection because of the risk that he would be recruited by “gangs” in Haiti. [3]   The RPD found that the applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. ... RPD Decision [15]   In a decision dated January 11, 2019, the RPD found that the applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. ... According to the respondent, the risk related to gangs invoked by the applicant is essentially generalized. [32]   In my view, the RPD reasonably concluded that the applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [33]   First, the RPD’s findings that the applicant is not at risk as a result of his uncle’s political opinions are reasonable. ...