Search - convention

At issue in this appeal is the proper interpretation to be accorded paragraph 212(5)(a) of the Income Tax Act and Article XIIIC of the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention, 1942. ... The Minister submits that video tapes of motion picture films are motion picture films for the purpose of subsection 212(5) of the Income Tax Act and Article XIIIC of the Canada-United States Income Tax Convention, 1942. ... Income Tax Act and the Canada- United States Tax Convention. Although video tape may be the method of presentation, the content nevertheless remains a motion picture film within the ordinary and commonly understood meaning of those words. ...

The Canada-U.S. 1942 Tax Convention is the tax convention relevant to the case at hand. The Canada-U.S. 1942 Tax Convention was adopted, approved and incorporated into the domestic tax laws of Canada by the Canada United States of America Convention Act, 1943, 7 George VI, c. 21. ... Tax Convention. Walsh, J. noted that the Federal Court has the right to interpret the Canada-U.S. ...

Ladite convention a été produite sous Exhibit A-1. 4.03 Les principales clauses de la convention utile aux fins du présent litige sont les suivantes (les soulignements sont de la Commission): APPORTS DE CAPITAL 3. ... La convention du 15 décembre 1972 est encore plus simple. Cette deuxième convention n'est pas du type visé à l'article 96(1.1) parce qu'il ne s’agit pas d'une convention entre tous les associés allouant un droit de recevoir une part du revenu; mais plutôt, c'était une convention entre l'associé quittant et deux autres individus qui sont, par coïncidence, les associés seniors de la société en question. ... En résumé, il n’existait pas de convention qui se devait d'être interprétée selon l’article 96(1.1) de la L LIR. ...

Hafamo’s first cousin and some other individuals sponsored his application for permanent residence under the Convention Refugee Abroad class and Humanitarian-Protected Persons Abroad class. ... Hafamo was not a member of the Convention Refugee Abroad class or the Humanitarian-Protected Persons Abroad class. ... It is not equivalent to the definition of a refugee, or the grounds for exclusion from refugee status [citation omitted], both of which are rooted in the Refugee Convention itself. ...

Desir, is excluded from protection under Article 1E of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees [Article 1E], and the Applicants are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. ... RPD’s Decision [6]   The RPD concluded the Applicants were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. ... It further found that Miss Bercy was not a Convention refugee as she did not have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in Chile. ...

The decision rejected their application for permanent residence as members of the class of Convention refugees abroad or the class of humanitarian­protected persons abroad.   ... Furthermore, South Africa is a signatory country of the Refugee Convention, and the principle of non­refoulement is written into in its legislation. [15]   There is no further evidence in the file to enlighten the Court as to the certification process for refugee status in South Africa, whether there is one, or whether the applicants used it.   ... The Convention and the Immigration Act should be interpreted with the correct purpose in mind.”   ...

By statute, the Convention has the force of law. Article VIII A provides: Article VIII A. ... The plaintiff then asserted reliance on sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1952, c 148, and Article VIIT A of the Convention. ... At the trial, however, counsel for the defendant in his Opening statement took the position that the defendant fell within Article VIII A of the Convention and was in fact exempt from January 1 to June 30, 1970, and he offered evidence to establish the defendant’s right to the exemption. ...

In that decision, dated April 18, 2018, the IRCC refused to reconsider the Applicant’s application for refugee protection. [4]   In the decision, dated February 27, 2019, the Officer found that the Applicant was ineligible to make a claim in Canada for refugee protection, pursuant to the Act, on the grounds that he has been recognized as a Convention Refugee in the United States of America and can return to that country. ... Khosa, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339. [15]   In my opinion, the Officer reasonably found that the Applicant was not eligible to apply for Convention Refugee status in Canada since he held status in the United States, that is as a permanent resident. The finding is supported by the Applicant’s evidence that he presented to the Officer. [16]   The Officer referred to paragraph 101 (1) (d) of the Act which provides as follows: 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: (d) the claimant has been recognized as a Convention refugee by a country other than Canada and can be sent or returned to that country; d) reconnaissance de la qualité de réfugié par un pays vers lequel il peut être renvoyé; [17]   The Officer’s decision meets the applicable standard of reasonableness, as discussed in Dunsmuir, supra. ...

Overview [1]   The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of an Immigration Officer of the Immigration Section of the High Commission of Canada in Ghana [Officer], dated September 16, 2018, denying his application for a permanent resident visa as a member of the Convention refugee abroad class or country of asylum class. [2]   For the reasons that follow, the application is dismissed. ... The Officer’s Decision [8]   By letter dated September 16, 2018, the Officer rejected the Applicant’s application stating that he was not satisfied that the Applicant was a member of the Convention refugee abroad class or country of asylum class. ...   [15]   It was the Applicant’s burden to demonstrate that he satisfied the requirements for a permanent resident visa as a member of the Convention refugee abroad class or country of asylum class: see Qurbani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 127 at para 18; see also Salimi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 872 at para 7. ...

Introduction [1]                This is an application for judicial review made under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) of a decision made by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) on December 30, 2015, affirming a decision rendered by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) concluding that the applicant was not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. [2]                I am of the opinion that the RAD’s decision was reasonable and that this application for judicial review should be dismissed. ... The RPD made the following determinations: Identity: The applicant proved his identity; Credibility: He was a credible witness, in all of his allegations; Section 96 of the IRPA: He is not a Convention refugee because his fear is not based on any of the grounds set out in the Convention; neither “victims of criminality” nor “entrepreneurs” are recognized social groups within the meaning of Canada (Attorney General) v. ... Decision [6]                The RAD affirmed the RPD’s determination that the applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. ...