Search - convention

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 549   ADVANCE \d50 Date: 20050422   Docket: IMM-6613-04   Citation: 2005 FC 549   [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, Friday, April 22, 2005   Present:   The Honourable Justice François Lemieux     BETWEEN:   MOHAMED LEMINE OULD SALECK     Applicant    - and-     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP   AND IMMIGRATION     Respondent       REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER     [1] Mohamed Lemine Ould Saleck (the applicant), citizen of Mauritania, age 44, is contesting on several grounds the June 28, 2004, decision of the Refugee Protection Division (the panel or RPD), denying him the status of Convention refugee or person in need of protection. [2] Among these grounds, the applicant cites: (1) bias of the panel; (2) breach of procedural fairness due to the multiple interventions of the presiding member; (3) abusive finding that he was not a credible witness; (4) the panel’s use of information from its specialized knowledge without giving him the opportunity to make representations; and (5) erroneous analysis of the demonstration on May 30, 2003, in front of the Embassy of Mauritania in Ottawa, the basis of his claim that he was a refugee sur place. [3] I need not address all of these grounds, since I am convinced that the panel made several errors in its analysis of the demonstration in Ottawa and that these errors alone justify setting aside the panel’s decision. [4] The panel writes the following about the demonstration in Ottawa:       [translation] Alongside other individuals, the applicant participated in a demonstration in front of the Embassy of Mauritania in Ottawa between 12:00 and 1:00 p.m. on May 30, 2003. ...

These provisions read as follows: 212.(1) Every non-resident person shall pay an income tax of 25% on every amount that a person resident in Canada pays or credits, or is deemed by Part I to pay or credit, to the non-resident person as, on account or in lieu of payment of, or in satisfaction of,      (b)interest except      (vii) interest payable by a corporation resident in Canada to a person with whom that corporation is dealing at arm"s length on any obligation where the evidence of indebtedness was issued by that corporation after June 23, 1975 if under the terms of the obligation or any agreement relating thereto the corporation may not under any circumstances be obliged to pay more than 25% of          (B)... the principal amount of the obligation, within 5 years from the date of single debt issue or that obligation, as the case may be, 212.(1) Toute personne non-résidente doit payer un impôt sur le revenu de 25% sur toute somme qu"une personne résidant au Canada lui paie ou porte à son crédit, ou est réputée en vertu de la partie I lui payer ou porter à son crédit, au titre ou en paiement intégral ou partiel:      b) d"intérêts, sauf:      (vii) les intérêts payables sur un titre par une société résidant au Canada à une personne avec laquelle cette société n"a aucun lien de dépendance, lorsque le titre de créance a été émis par cette société après le 23 juin 1975, si, selon les modalités du titre ou d"une convention s"y rapportant, la société ne peut, en aucun cas, être tenue de verser plus de 25%:          (B)... du montant du principal de l"obligation, dans les 5 années suivant la date de l"émission couvrant une dette unique ou de cette obligation, selon le cas, [4]      In the present case, the plaintiff maintains that the Minister erred in concluding that the exemption provision in paragraph 212(1)(b)(vii) of the Income Tax Act did not apply to the payment of interest in question. ...

Droit du fonctionnaire   208. (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) à (7), le fonctionnaire a le droit de présenter un grief individuel lorsqu’il s’estime lésé:   a) par l’interprétation ou l’application à son égard:   (i) soit de toute disposition d’une loi ou d’un règlement, ou de toute directive ou de tout autre document de l’employeur concernant les conditions d’emploi,   (ii) soit de toute disposition d’une convention collective ou d’une décision arbitrale;   b) par suite de tout fait portant atteinte à ses conditions d’emploi ...

Germain then showed the customs officer a CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) export permit issued by Belgian authorities, authorizing the exportation of a statuette made of elephant ivory from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. ...

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1247 Date: 20161108 Docket: IMM-2233-16 Citation: 2016 FC 1247 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, November 8, 2016 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Martineau BETWEEN: DIENEBA KOITA alias ALIMA DIAWARA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent DECISION AND REASONS [1]                This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB] rendered on May 10, 2016, dismissing the applicant’s application and confirming the Refugee Protection Division’s [RPD] decision that the applicant is not considered a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under Sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 [IRPA]. [2]                The applicant, who is originally from Mali, left her country to seek refuge in Canada on March 22, 2015. ...

Even considering the situation of women—which is far from good in Haiti—the officer could reasonably conclude that the evidence on file was insufficient to justify a remedy based on that humanitarian consideration. [11]            Fifthly, concerning the best interests of her children, the applicant argues that the officer did not give enough weight to the values of the immigration system and the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, while the impugned decision causes irreparable harm to her plans for family reunification, because her eldest son just turned 18 and she will now be unable to sponsor him. ...

The RAD and the RPD found that the applicant was neither a “Convention refugee” nor a “person in need of protection” under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 [IRPA]. [2]   The applicant is a citizen of Haiti, where she owned and operated a small restaurant that she had been running since the 1990s. ...

f) Whether the RAD erred in concluding that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee on the basis of her exposure to domestic violence? ...

In its decision, the RAD confirmed the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) that the applicant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA). ...

Introduction [1]   This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [RAD] dated December 20, 2018, which dismissed the appeal from the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] finding that the Applicants are neither convention refugees nor persons in need of protection. ...