README.md

---
tags:
- sentence-transformers
- sentence-similarity
- feature-extraction
- generated_from_trainer
- dataset_size:12750
- loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
base_model: nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5
widget:
- source_sentence: 'cluster: SUMMARY:  Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited

    Court (s) Database

    Federal Court Decisions

    Date

    2007-10-31

    Neutral citation

    2007 FC 1126

    File numbers

    T-1048-07

    Decision Content

    Date: 20071031

    Docket: T-1048-07

    Citation: 2007 FC 1126

    Toronto, Ontario, October 31, 2007

    PRESENT: The Honourable Justice Johanne Gauthier

    BETWEEN:

    ELI LILLY CANADA INC., ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,

    ELI LILLY COMPANY LIMITED and ELI LILLY SA

    Plaintiffs

    (Defendants by Counterclaim)

    and

    NOVOPHARM LIMITED

    Defendant

    (Plaintiff by Counterclaim)

    REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

    [1] Novopharm appeals the Order of Prothonotary Tabib dated September 25, 2007
    granting the plaintiffs’ motion for bifurcation of the issues of quantum from
    those of validity and infringement of the patent in suit pursuant to Rule 107
    of the Federal Courts Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106. It is to be noted that Prothonotary
    Tabib is the Case Manager in this matter.

    [2] All the principles applicable to this appeal are well known. As the matter
    before Prothonotary Tabib did not involve a question vital to the final issue
    of the case, the Court should not intervene on appeal unless her decision was
    clearly wrong, “in the sense that the exercise of discretion was based upon a
    wrong principle or a misapprehension of the facts” (Z.I. Pompey Industrie v. ECU-Line
    N.V. [2003], 1 S.C.R. 450 at para. 461), Merck and Co. v. Apotex Inc. [2003],
    30 C.P.R (4th) 40 (FCA); [2003] F.C.J. No. 1925 at para. 19). The principles or
    conditions for the making of an order pursuant to Rule 107 are also well established
    (see for example Apotex Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. 2003 F.C.A. 263, (2003)
    26 C.P.R. (4th) 129 at para. 7); Illva Saronno S.p.A. v. Privilegiata Fabbrica
    Maraschino "Excelsior" (T.D.), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1500; Illva Saronno S.p.A. v.
    Privilegiata Fabbrica Maraschino, [2000] F.C.J. No. 170 at para 8; Merck & Co.
    et al. v. Brantford Chemicals Inc. [2004] F.C.J. No. 1704, 35 C.P.R. (4th) 4,
    aff’d [2005] F.C.J. No. 837, 39 C.P.R (4th) 524 (F.C.A.); Apotex Inc. v. Merck
    & Co. [2004] F.C.J. No. 1372 at para. 3). It is trite law that the applicant bears
    the burden of convincing the Court on a balance of probabilities that in light
    of the evidence and all of the circumstances of the case (including the nature
    of the claims, the conduct of the litigation, the issues and remedies sought),
    bifurcation or severance is more likely than not to result in the just, expeditious
    and least expensive determination of the proceeding on its merits.

    [3] That being said, having carefully considered all the arguments put forth by
    the parties on this appeal, the Court is not persuaded that Prothonotary Tabib
    made any error that warrants the Court’s intervention.

    [4] As mentioned at the hearing, given that time is of the essence here, the Court
    will not comment on each and every issue raised by Novopharm (such issues are
    summarised at paragraph 2 of the written representations). However, considering
    the importance given to the following issues at the hearing, it is worth noting
    specifically that the Court cannot agree with Novopharm that Prothonotary Tabib
    implicitly applied or assumed the existence of a presumption in favour of bifurcation
    in patent infringement cases, which had the effect of actually reversing the burden
    of proof so as to place it on the shoulders of Novopharm. There was evidence before
    Prothonotary Tabib dealing with bifurcation of quantum issues in cases involving
    patent infringement in the last fifteen years (such as the affidavits of Nancy
    Gallinger and of Alisha Meredith). Prothonotary Tabib expressly refers to Apotex
    Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. above; in that case, the Federal Court of Appeal
    agreed that “when an experienced specialist bar like the intellectual property
    bar commonly consents to the making of a bifurcation order, it is open to a judge
    to infer that, in general, such an order may well advance the just and expeditious
    resolution of claims”.

    [5] It is also absolutely clear from the decision that this was only one of many
    factors Prothonotary Tabib considered before making her order. Among many other
    things, she was satisfied based on the evidence before her, the pleadings, her
    knowledge of the history of the proceeding and the issues it involved, that not
    only would bifurcation likely have the advantage of speeding up the determination
    of the liability issues (which at this stage also involve novel questions of law
    particularly in respect of the section 8 counterclaim), but that bifurcation would
    also more likely than not avoid at least one side of the quantification exercise
    whatever the result of the trial on liability issues. (page 4 last sentence and
    page 6 and 7)

    [6] Evidently, the Prothonotary was satisfied that she did not require more specific
    evidence in respect of the number of days of discoveries or an exact quantification
    of the time and expenses that would be saved in order to determine whether this
    would necessarily result in a saving of time and money for the Court and the parties.

    [7] Novopharm says that this constitute an error of law as Prothonotary Tabib
    failed to heed the evidentiary requirements set out by the Federal Court of Appeal
    in Realsearch Inc. v. Valon Kone Brunette, 31 C.P.R. (4th) 101 (F.C.A.), [2004]
    2 F.C.R. 514.

    [8] Like Prothonotary Tabib, the Court does not believe that Realsearch establishes
    a new condition or standard for the making of an order under Rule 107. As any
    party who has a burden of proof to meet, the applicant seeking such an order must
    provide sufficient evidence to enable the Court to come to a conclusion on the
    matter before it. The fact that there was no evidence dealing with the specific
    saving of time and money that would result from the bifurcation in the case before
    the Court in Realsearch was worth noting and was particularly significant because
    the bifurcation sought in that case was in respect of a question of law (claims
    construction). Such request was an unusual and a somewhat novel use of bifurcation
    pursuant to Rule 107. In such a case, the Court could not rely on experience or
    on an inference based on a consistent practice in respect of the bifurcation of
    quantum issues in similar cases or on knowledge acquired while case managing the
    matter. The situation is quite different here.

    [9] It is clear from her order that Prothonotary Tabib knew perfectly well that
    the applicant had to satisfy her on a balance of probabilities. She was fully
    aware of all the arguments raised by Novopharm in respect of the quality (or rather
    lack thereof) of the evidence before her. Still, she concluded on page 9 that
    on the whole, she was satisfied that she could reach a conclusion that severance
    is more likely than not to result in the just, expeditious and least expensive
    determination of the proceeding on its merits.

    [10] In fact, even if Novopharm had convinced that the Court that it should exercise
    its discretion de novo, the Court would ultimately have reached the same conclusion
    as Prothonotary Tabib.

    ORDER

    THIS COURT ORDERS that:

    The appeal is dismissed with costs.

    “Johanne Gauthier”

    Judge

    FEDERAL COURT

    SOLICITORS OF RECORD

    DOCKET: T-1048-07

    STYLE OF CAUSE: ELI LILLY CANADA INC. ET AL

    Plaintiffs

    and

    NOVOPHARM LIMITED Defendant

    PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO

    DATE OF HEARING: 29-OCT-2007

    REASONS FOR : Gauthier, J.

    DATED: 31-OCT-2007

    APPEARANCES:

    MR. ANTHONY G. CREBER

    FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

    MR. JONATHAN STAINSBY

    MR. ANDY RADHAKANT

    MR. NEIL FINEBERG

    FOR THE DEFENDANT

    SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

    GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP

    Barristers & Solicitors

    Ottawa, Ontario

    FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

    HEENAN BLAIKIE LLP

    Lawyers

    Toronto, Ontario

    FOR THE DEFENDANT

    '
  sentences:
  - 'cluster: ANALYSIS:  In analyzing the issue of whether the applicants were denied
    the right to counsel, the court carefully reviewed the transcript of the hearing
    and found that it did not support the applicants'' allegations. The court noted
    that the applicants had been informed that their original lawyer, Philip U. Okpala,
    would not be attending the hearing and that they had been given the opportunity
    to request an adjournment, which was denied. The court also found that the Board
    Member had not pressured the applicants to proceed without counsel, but rather
    had given them the opportunity to decide whether to proceed with or without counsel.
    In analyzing the issue of whether the Board made capricious findings of fact,
    the court determined that the Board''s conclusion that the police were unable
    to locate the perpetrator of the ticket incident and that the principal claimant
    did not pursue the matter further was reasonable and not made arbitrarily or irrationally.'
  - 'cluster: SUMMARY:  **(1) Facts**


    The case before the court involves a patent dispute between Eli Lilly Canada Inc.
    and Novopharm Limited. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. had sought a motion to bifurcate
    the issues of quantum from those of validity and infringement of the patent in
    suit. Prothonotary Tabib granted the motion, and Novopharm Limited appealed the
    decision. The parties involved in the case had been litigating for some time,
    and the court was considering the appropriateness of bifurcation to speed up the
    determination of the liability issues and to avoid quantification exercises.


    **(2) Issue**


    The issue before the court was whether Prothonotary Tabib erred in granting the
    motion to bifurcate the issues of quantum from those of validity and infringement
    of the patent in suit. Novopharm Limited argued that Prothonotary Tabib had made
    an error of law in granting the motion without sufficient evidence to support
    the decision. Specifically, Novopharm Limited argued that Prothonotary Tabib had
    failed to heed the evidentiary requirements set out by the Federal Court of Appeal
    in Realsearch Inc. v. Valon Kone Brunette.


    **(3) Rule**


    The court applied the principles established in previous cases, including Z.I.
    Pompey Industrie v. ECU-Line N.V. and Merck and Co. v. Apotex Inc. The court held
    that the applicant bears the burden of convincing the court on a balance of probabilities
    that bifurcation or severance is more likely than not to result in the just, expeditious,
    and least expensive determination of the proceeding on its merits.


    **(4) Analysis**


    The court analyzed the decision of Prothonotary Tabib and found that she had considered
    multiple factors before granting the motion to bifurcate. The court noted that
    Prothonotary Tabib had considered the evidence before her, the pleadings, her
    knowledge of the history of the proceeding, and the issues it involved. The court
    also found that Prothonotary Tabib had not implicitly applied or assumed the existence
    of a presumption in favor of bifurcation in patent infringement cases. The court
    concluded that Prothonotary Tabib had not made an error of law in granting the
    motion to bifurcate.


    **(5) Conclusion**


    The court dismissed Novopharm Limited''s appeal, finding that Prothonotary Tabib
    had not erred in granting the motion to bifurcate the issues of quantum from those
    of validity and infringement of the patent in suit. The court held that Prothonotary
    Tabib had considered the necessary factors and had not made an error of law in
    granting the motion. The court also noted that even if it had exercised its discretion
    de novo, it would have reached the same conclusion as Prothonotary Tabib.'
  - 'cluster: FACTS:  The case before the court involves a patent dispute between
    Eli Lilly Canada Inc. and Novopharm Limited. Eli Lilly Canada Inc. had sought
    a motion to bifurcate the issues of quantum from those of validity and infringement
    of the patent in suit. Prothonotary Tabib granted the motion, and Novopharm Limited
    appealed the decision. The parties involved in the case had been litigating for
    some time, and the court was considering the appropriateness of bifurcation to
    speed up the determination of the liability issues and to avoid quantification
    exercises.'
- source_sentence: 'cluster: SUMMARY:  Mennes v. McClung

    Court (s) Database

    Federal Court Decisions

    Date

    2001-12-07

    Neutral citation

    2001 FCT 1349

    File numbers

    T-2351-00

    Notes

    Digest

    Decision Content

    Date: 20011207

    Docket: T-2351-00

    Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1349

    BETWEEN:

    EMILE MENNES

    Applicant

    and

    LUCIE McCLUNG, OLE INGSTRUP, MICHEL ROY, KAREN WISEMAN,

    LIZ ESHKROD, THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONS,

    THE CORECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA,

    THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF CANADA,

    THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE

    Respondents

    REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

    BLAIS J.

    [1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision rendered by the
    Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman, Correctional Service of Canada
    ("CSC") of Inmate Grievance Presentation ("Third level"), Reference No. V4000A004355
    under subsection 4(g) and sections 90 and 91 of the Corrections and Conditional
    Release Act (the "Act").

    FACTS

    [2] The applicant is an inmate at Warkworth Institution in Campbellford, Ontario.

    [3] The applicant has been working as a grievance clerk for Warkworth at the office
    of the Institutional Grievance Co-ordinator for approximately two and a half (2½)
    years.

    [4] The applicant is aware of the policy and the procedure governing the grievance
    process at Warkworth Institution.

    [5] On February 18, 2000, the applicant began a group complaint with fellow inmate
    Helmut Buxbaum.

    [6] The complaint was entered in regards to the state of some of the laundered
    bed linens that had been returned to the applicant.

    [7] The applicant has described the condition of the bed linens to be "absolutely
    disgusting", with "nose pickings baked along one edge", "permanently stained with
    urine and other bodily emissions" (see page 6, paragraph 12 of the affidavit of
    Emile Mennes, applicant''s record).

    [8] The applicant''s original complaint was denied and consequently, the applicant
    appealed the decision through the First level grievance (Institutional Warden),
    the Second level grievance (Regional) and subsequently the Third (and final) level
    grievance (National). The applicant''s complaint was denied at each level.

    [9] In regards to the content of the applicant''s Third level grievance, the applicant
    sought to be issued new bed linens and in addition, he requested that the unit
    laundry room be converted into a full scale laundromat so that the inmates at
    Warkworth could have the privilege of laundering their own bed linens.

    [10] On September 8, 2000, the Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman
    denied the applicant''s Third level appeal with the provision of reasons on both
    grounds.

    PERTINENT LEGISLATION

    3. The purpose of the federal correctional system is to contribute to the maintenance
    of a just, peaceful and safe society by

    (a) carrying out sentences imposed by courts through the safe and humane custody
    and supervision of offenders; and

    (b) assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the
    community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries
    and in the community.

    3. Le système correctionnel vise à contribuer au maintien d''une société juste,
    vivant en paix et en sécurité, d''une part, en assurant l''exécution des peines
    par des mesures de garde et de surveillance sécuritaires et humaines, et d''autre
    part, en aidant au moyen de programmes appropriés dans les pénitenciers ou dans
    la collectivité, à la réadaptation des délinquants et à leur réinsertion sociale
    à titre de citoyens respectueux des lois.

    4. The principles that shall guide the Service in achieving the purpose referred
    to in section 3 are

    [...]

    (g) that correctional decisions be made in a forthright and fair manner, with
    access by the offender to an effective grievance procedure;

    4. Le Service est guidé, dans l''exécution de ce mandat, par les principes qui
    suivent :

    [...]

    (g) ses décisions doivent être claires et équitables, les délinquants ayant accès
    à des mécanismes efficaces de règlement de griefs;

    90. There shall be a procedure for fairly and expeditiously resolving offenders''
    grievances on matters within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, and the procedure
    shall operate in accordance with the regulations made under paragraph 96(u).

    90. Est établie, conformément aux règlements d''application de l''alinéa 96u),
    une procédure de règlement juste et expéditif des griefs des délinquants sur des
    questions relevant du commissaire.

    91. Every offender shall have complete access to the offender grievance procedure
    without negative consequences.

    91. Tout délinquant doit, sans crainte de représailles, avoir libre accès à la
    procédure de règlement des griefs.

    ISSUES

    [11] 1. Did CSC make a reviewable error in denying the applicant''s Third level
    appeal?

    2. Is the determination of the outcome of the applicant''s grievance at the Third
    level grievance appropriately delegated by the Commissioner of Corrections to
    the Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman?

    ANALYSIS

    1. Did CSC make a reviewable error in denying the applicant''s Third level appeal?

    [12] No, the CSC did not make a reviewable error in denying the applicant''s Third
    level appeal.

    STANDARD OF REVIEW

    [13] In Tehrankari v. Canada (Correctional Service), [2000] F.C.J. 495, Lemieux
    J. recently defined the applicable standard of review of a decision by the Federal
    Commissioner of the Correctional Service when applying the grievance procedure
    contained in Section 90 of the Act. He held:

    [para 33] A word needs to be said about the standard of review applicable in this
    case keeping in mind the type of decision made and the decision-maker (see Baker
    v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817. In Baker,
    supra, L''Heureux-Dubé J. pointed out it was held in Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister
    of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, a decision which related
    to the determination of a question of law in that case, (the interpretation of
    the exclusion provisions in section 2 of the Immigration Act as they relate to
    the definition of Convention refugee) made by the Immigration and Refugee Board,
    was subject to a standard of review of correctness but on other questions, the
    standard of review varied.

    [...]

    [para 44] To conclude on this point, I would apply a correctness standard if the
    question involved is the proper interpretation of section 24 of the Act; however,
    I would apply the standard of reasonableness simpliciter if the question involved
    is either the application of proper legal principles to the facts or whether the
    refusal decision to correct information on the offender''s file was proper. The
    patently unreasonable standard applies to pure findings of fact. (Subsection 18.2(4)
    of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.)

    [14] The decision to deny the applicant''s Third level appeal was based on pure
    findings of fact and therefore, the appropriate standard of review is patently
    unreasonable.

    [15] The applicant''s arguments presented on his Third level appeal were similar
    to the ones previously put forward at the earlier levels with the additional argument
    of a laundromat to be accessible to the inmates at Warkworth.

    [16] Subsection 82(a) of the Regulations applies on an appeal of a complaint or
    a grievance. The provision reads as follows:

    82. In reviewing an offender''s complaint or grievance, the person reviewing the
    complaint or grievance shall take into consideration

    (a) any efforts made by staff members and the offender to resolve the complaint
    or grievance, and any recommendations resulting therefrom; [...]

    82. Lors de l''examen de la plainte ou du grief, la personne chargée de cet examen
    doit tenir compte :

    (a) des mesures prises par les agents et le délinquant pour régler la question
    sur laquelle porte la plainte ou le grief et des recommandations en découlant;

    [17] In the present case, the "efforts made by staff members" resulted in an exchange
    of the soiled bed linens the applicant complained of in his grievance, yet he
    remains to date dissatisfied with his bed linens, pillow and mattress, but there
    is nothing that justify the Court to intervene.

    2. Is the determination of the outcome of the applicant''s grievance appropriately
    delegated by the Commissioner of Corrections to the Acting Assistant Commissioner
    Karen J. Wiseman?

    [18] Yes, the determination of the outcome of the applicant''s grievance was appropriately
    delegated by the Commissioner of Corrections to the Acting Assistant Commissioner
    Karen J. Wiseman.

    [19] The decision of the applicant''s Third level grievance was rendered by the
    Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman. The applicant claims that subsections
    80(2) and 80(3) of the Regulations state that the Commissioner of Corrections,
    Ms. Lucie McClung, should have been the one to hear his appeal and not the Acting
    Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman. The applicant relies upon subsections
    80(2) and 80(3) of the Regulations and the long established rule of delegatus
    non potest delegare as a principle of interpretation or statutory construction.

    [20] However, according to the respondent, at each level of the applicant''s grievance
    process, his complaint was reviewed by the appropriate party designated under
    the Act and the Regulations. Sections 75-82 of the Regulations provide for the
    grievance process and there is clearly no requirement under the Act or the Regulations
    for the Commissioner of Corrections, to individually or directly review complaints
    at the Third level appeal or at any other level. In addition, it would be impractical
    for the Commissioner of Corrections to have to review all the grievances made
    by every inmate in the country, at each level of appeal.

    [21] The resolution to this issue is found in several sources: section 97 of the
    Act, section 98 of the Act, Commissioner''s Directive Number 081 dated June 22,
    1998 entitled Offender Complaints and Grievances (CD 081), the inclusion printed
    at the bottom of the decision of the Commissioner (Third level grievance - National)
    and lastly subsection 2(2) of the Act. They will be treated below in this order.
    It is the interaction between these multiple sources that allowed for the delegation
    of authority to the Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman by the Commissioner
    to pronounce on the final stage of the grievance process.

    [22] Section 97 of the Act pertains to the Commissioner having the authority to
    issue Rules:

    97. Subject to this Part and the regulations, the Commissioner may make rules

    (a) for the management of the Service;

    (b) for the matters described in section 4; and

    (c) generally for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Part and the
    regulations.

    97. Sous réserve de la présente partie et de ses règlements, le commissaire peut
    établir des règles concernant :

    a) la gestion du Service;

    b) les questions énumérées à l''article 4;

    c) toute autre mesure d''application de cette partie et des règlements.

    [23] Section 98 of the Act allows for the creation of Commissioner''s Directives:

    98. (1) The Commissioner may designate as Commissioner''s Directives any or all
    rules made under section 97.

    (2) The Commissioner''s Directives shall be accessible to offenders, staff members
    and the public.

    98. (1) Les règles établies en application de l''article 97 peuvent faire l''objet
    de directives du commissaire.

    (2) Les directives doivent être accessibles et peuvent être consultées par les
    délinquants, les agents et le public.

    [24] Commissioner''s Directive entitled Offender Complaints and Grievances (CD
    081) reads at paragraphs 19 and 20:

    19. An offender, who is not satisfied with the decision from the Regional Deputy
    Commissioner, may submit a grievance to the Assistant Commissioner, Corporate
    Development, through the Institutional Grievance Coordinator or through the District
    Office. A grievance must normally be submitted within ten working days of receipt
    of the reply at the regional level. An offender may also grieve at this level
    in cases where action was not taken in accordance with the Regional Deputy Commissioner''s
    decision.

    20. The decision of the Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Development constitutes
    the final stage of the Offender Complaints and Grievance process.

    19. Le délinquant qui est insatisfait de la décision du sous-commissaire régional
    peut soumettre un grief au commissaire adjoint, Développement organisationnel,
    par l''entremise du coordonnateur des griefs de l''établissement ou du bureau
    de district. Le grief doit normalement être présenté dans les dix jours ouvrables
    suivant la réception de la réponse au niveau régional. Un délinquant peut aussi
    présenter un grief à ce niveau lorsque les mesures prescrites par le sous-commissaire
    régional n''ont pas été mises en application.

    20. La décision du commissaire adjoint, Développement organisationnel, constitue
    l''étape finale du processus de règlement des plaintes et des griefs des délinquants.

    [25] The next source is the inclusion printed in the decision of the Commissioner
    (Third level grievance - National), found at the bottom of the page above the
    signature, and which reads as follows:

    The Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada has authorized the Assistant
    Commissioner, Corporate Development (ACCD), Michel Roy, to exercise the powers,
    duties, and functions given to him under Section 80(2) of the Corrections and
    Conditional Release Regulations, 1992. This authorization remains in effect until
    such time as it is withdrawn in writing.

    Accordingly, this decision by the ACCD is to be considered the conclusion of the
    inmate grievance system.

    Le Commissaire du Service correctionnel du Canada a autorisé le Commissaire adjoint,
    Développement organisationnel, Michel Roy, à exercer les pouvoirs et les fonctions
    qui lui sont conférés en vertu du paragraphe 80(2) du Règlement sur le système
    correctionnel et la mise en liberté sous condition (1992). Cette autorisation
    demeure en vigueur jusqu''à ce qu''elle soit révoquée par écrit.

    Par conséquent, la décision du Commissaire adjoint, Développement organisationnel
    constitue l''étape finale du processus de règlement des plaintes et griefs des
    détenus.

    [26] However, in order to answer the specific issue in question that being, can
    Assistant Commissioner Michel Roy delegate his authority to an Acting Assistant
    Commissioner for the purpose of rendering a final decision in the grievance process?
    The ultimate solution to this question is found in subsection 2(2) of the Act.
    The French version of this provision is more instructive than the English version
    and therefore has been reproduced first, followed by the English version:

    Délégation

    (2) Sauf dans les cas visés à l''alinéa 96b) et sous réserve de la présente partie,
    les pouvoirs et fonctions conférés par celle-ci au commissaire et au directeur
    du pénitencier sont, en cas d''absence, d''empêchement ou de vacance de leur poste,
    respectivement exercés par le suppléant ou par la personne qui est alors responsable
    du pénitencier.

    Exercise of powers, etc.

    (2) Except as otherwise provided by this Part or by regulations made under paragraph
    96(b),

    (a) powers, duties and functions that this Part assigns to the Commissioner may
    only be exercised or performed by the Commissioner or, where Commissioner is absent
    or incapacitated or where the office is vacant, by the person acting in the place
    of the Commissioner; and

    (b) powers, duties and functions that this Part assigns to the institutional head
    may only be exercised or performed by the institutional head or, where institutional
    head is absent or incapacitated or where the office is vacant, by the person who,
    at the relevant time, is in charge of the penitentiary.

    [27] In summary, the Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen Wiseman held the proper
    authority by virtue of the aforementioned sources in rendering her final decision
    of the grievance process under subsections 80(2) and 80(3) of the Act.

    [28] It is my opinion that there is no reason warranting the intervention of this
    Court as the decision of the Acting Assistant Commissioner does not reveal any
    reviewable errors.

    [29] Therefore, this application for judicial review should be dismissed.

    Pierre Blais

    Judge

    OTTAWA, ONTARIO

    December 7, 2001

    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

    TRIAL DIVISION

    NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

    DOCKET: T-2351-00

    STYLE OF CAUSE: Emile Mennes - and - Lucie McClung and others

    PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario

    DATE OF HEARING: November 28, 2001 REASONS FOR ORDER: the Honourable Mr. Justice
    Blais DATED:, December 7, 2001

    APPEARANCES:

    Mr. Emile MennesFOR APPLICANT

    Ms. Sogie SabetaFOR RESPONDENT

    SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

    Mr. Emile Mennes FOR APPLICANT Campbellford, Ontario

    Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada

    '
  sentences:
  - 'cluster: SUMMARY:  **(1) Facts**


    The person concerned, an inmate at Warkworth Institution in Campbellford, Ontario,
    has been working as a grievance clerk for approximately two and a half years.
    He initiated a group complaint with fellow inmate Helmut Buxbaum regarding the
    state of laundered bed linens, which he described as "absolutely disgusting" with
    stains and other bodily emissions. The complaint was denied at each level of the
    grievance process, including the Third level appeal, which was decided by the
    Acting Assistant Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman. The person concerned sought to
    have new bed linens issued and the unit laundry room converted into a full-scale
    laundromat, allowing inmates to launder their own bed linens.


    **(2) Issue**


    The issues before the court were: (1) whether the Correctional Service of Canada
    (CSC) made a reviewable error in denying the person concerned''s Third level appeal,
    and (2) whether the determination of the outcome of the person concerned''s grievance
    was appropriately delegated by the Commissioner of Corrections to the Acting Assistant
    Commissioner Karen J. Wiseman.


    **(3) Rule**


    The court applied the standard of review of patently unreasonable to the decision
    of the Acting Assistant Commissioner. The court held that the CSC did not make
    a reviewable error in denying the person concerned''s Third level appeal. The
    decision was based on pure findings of fact, and the CSC had considered the efforts
    made by staff members to resolve the complaint, including exchanging the soiled
    bed linens. The court also held that the determination of the outcome of the person
    concerned''s grievance was appropriately delegated by the Commissioner of Corrections
    to the Acting Assistant Commissioner.


    **(4) Analysis**


    The court analyzed the standard of review applicable to the decision of the Acting
    Assistant Commissioner, citing Tehrankari v. Canada (Correctional Service), [2000]
    F.C.J. 495, and Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999]
    2 S.C.R. 817. The court applied the standard of patently unreasonable to the decision,
    as it was based on pure findings of fact. The court also examined the CSC''s decision-making
    process, citing subsection 82(a) of the Regulations, which requires consideration
    of efforts made by staff members to resolve the complaint. The court found that
    the CSC had considered these efforts and had not made a reviewable error in denying
    the person concerned''s Third level appeal.


    Regarding the delegation of authority, the court examined the relevant legislation,
    including sections 75-82 of the Regulations, and Commissioner''s Directive Number
    081. The court held that the Acting Assistant Commissioner had the proper authority
    to render the final decision in the grievance process, citing subsection 2(2)
    of the Act, which allows for delegation of powers and functions in cases of absence,
    incapacitation, or vacancy.


    **(5) Conclusion**


    The court concluded that the CSC did not make a reviewable error in denying the
    person concerned''s Third level appeal, and that the determination of the outcome
    of the grievance was appropriately delegated by the Commissioner of Corrections
    to the Acting Assistant Commissioner. The court dismissed the application for
    judicial review, finding no reason to intervene in the decision of the Acting
    Assistant Commissioner.'
  - 'cluster: FACTS:  The person concerned, a 68-year-old citizen of Saint Lucia,
    came to Canada as a visitor in 2003 and has remained here ever since. She has
    three sisters, two adult sons, and their respective families living in Canada.
    The person concerned submitted an application for permanent residence on humanitarian
    and compassionate grounds under subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee
    Protection Act in 2018. Her application was based on her establishment in Canada,
    the best interests of her Canadian grandchildren, and the hardship she would face
    if she were required to return to Saint Lucia. A Senior Immigration Officer refused
    the application in 2019, citing concerns about the credibility of the person concerned''s
    evidence.'
  - 'cluster: ANALYSIS:  The court analyzed the standard of review applicable to the
    decision of the Acting Assistant Commissioner, citing Tehrankari v. Canada (Correctional
    Service), [2000] F.C.J. 495, and Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
    Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817. The court applied the standard of patently
    unreasonable to the decision, as it was based on pure findings of fact. The court
    also examined the CSC''s decision-making process, citing subsection 82(a) of the
    Regulations, which requires consideration of efforts made by staff members to
    resolve the complaint. The court found that the CSC had considered these efforts
    and had not made a reviewable error in denying the person concerned''s Third level
    appeal.Regarding the delegation of authority, the court examined the relevant
    legislation, including sections 75-82 of the Regulations, and Commissioner''s
    Directive Number 081. The court held that the Acting Assistant Commissioner had
    the proper authority to render the final decision in the grievance process, citing
    subsection 2(2) of the Act, which allows for delegation of powers and functions
    in cases of absence, incapacitation, or vacancy.'
- source_sentence: 'cluster: CONCLUSION:  Duncan v. Behdzi Ahda First Nation

    Court (s) Database

    Federal Court Decisions

    Date

    2004-08-19

    Neutral citation

    2004 FC 1148

    File numbers

    T-2212-01

    Decision Content

    Date: 20040819

    Docket: T-2212-01

    Citation: 2004 FC 1148

    BETWEEN:

    DORA DUNCAN and JENNIFER DUNCAN

    Applicants

    and

    THE BAND COUNCIL OF BEHDZI AHDA FIRST NATION,

    THE SETTLEMENT CORPORATION OF COLVILLE LAKE,

    SHARON TUTCHO, J.B. GULLY, ROLAND CODZI,

    and SARAH KOCHON

    Respondents

    ASSESSMENT OF COSTS - REASONS

    CHARLES E. STINSON

    Assessment Officer

    [1] The Court, by way of judicial review, quashed resolutions by certain of the
    Respondents purporting to remove the Applicants from their elected positions of
    Chief and Band Councilor respectively and purporting to set a by-election to replace
    them. Costs were awarded jointly and severally as against the Respondents. I issued
    a timetable for written disposition of the Applicants'' bill of costs.

    THE RESPONDENTS'' POSITION

    [2] The Respondents took issue as follows with only four items:

    (i) item 1 (preparation of originating document and materials) should be reduced
    from the maximum 7 units claimed to 5 units because the issues were not particularly
    complex;

    (ii) item 5 (preparation for contested motion) should be reduced from the maximum
    7 units claimed to 4 units because its issues also were not particularly complex;

    (iii) item 8 (preparation for examination) should be reduced from the maximum
    5 units claimed to 3 units because the examination lasted one hour and

    (iv) item 10 (preparation for status review), claimed at the maximum 6 units,
    should be disallowed because the Respondents should not be liable for costs of
    a process necessitated solely by the Applicants'' failure to proceed expeditiously
    and because the status review was conducted in writing without the necessity of
    an appearance.

    THE APPLICANTS'' POSITION

    [3] The Applicants argued that the complexity and importance of band council resolutions
    coupled with the detail and volume of the supporting materials and with the lengthy
    consultations with counsel warrant the maximum 7 units for item 1. The amount
    of work that was required justifies the maximum 7 and 5 units respectively for
    items 5 and 8. For item 10, the Applicants asserted that they had been ready for
    trial and that the Court decided that the delay did not warrant a dismissal. The
    Respondents'' materials did not establish prejudice as a consequence of delay.
    The status review required considerable preparation time notwithstanding its conduct
    in writing.

    [4] The Applicants argued further to Mark M. Orkin Q.C., The Law of Costs, Second
    Edition, (Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book, 2003) at para. 222.1 (page 2-220.4) that
    the time spent by one counsel should not be the measure of the reasonableness
    of time spent by another counsel in providing representation necessary in the
    best interests of the latter''s client. As well, the Law of Costs supra holds
    at para. 222.3.1 (page 2-220.11) that some courts have been reluctant to interfere
    in the face of assertions of excessive hours claimed for counsel''s time and that
    some courts have said that party and party assessments of costs must acknowledge
    legitimate efforts of counsel relative to their clients and the courts.

    ASSESSMENT

    [5] I concluded at paragraph [7] in Bruce Starlight et al v. Her Majesty the Queen,
    [2001] F.C.J. 1376 (A.O.) that the same point in the ranges throughout the columns
    in the Tariff need not be used as each item for the services of counsel must be
    considered in its own circumstances and that some generalization is required between
    the available values in ranges. I will exercise discretion consistent with my
    approach in Grace M. Carlile v. Her Majesty the Queen (1997), 97 D.T.C. 5284 at
    5287 (T.O.) and with the sentiment of Lord Justice Russell in Re: Eastwood (deceased)
    (1974), 3 ALL. E.R. 603 at 608, that assessment of costs is "rough justice, in
    the sense of being compounded of much sensible approximation", in sorting out
    a reasonable result for costs. I do not think that this was the most complex instance
    of litigation. I allow 6 units for item 1. I have examined the materials associated
    with the interlocutory motion (by the Respondents for leave to file additional
    affidavits) in issue: I allow 5 units for item 5.

    [6] My allowance for item 1 reflected my sense for this litigation that strong
    feelings in a small and somewhat isolated community may have made the pre-hearing
    environment somewhat awkward. I allow the 5 units as claimed for item 8. As with
    some other steps in this litigation, the Applicants asserted the challenges facing
    the administration of justice in Northern Canada, including geography and limited
    resources, as factors affecting the process of status review. I think that an
    allowance is warranted for item 10, which I fix at 4 units.

    [7] The Applicants'' bill of costs, presented at $7,810.18, is assessed and allowed
    at $7,221.68.

    (Sgd.) "Charles E. Stinson"

    Assessment Officer

    Vancouver, British Columbia

    August 19, 2004

    FEDERAL COURT

    NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

    DOCKET: T-2212-01

    STYLE OF CAUSE: DORA DUNCAN ET AL.

    v.

    THE BAND COUNCIL OF BEHDZI AHDA FIRST NATION ET AL.

    ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN WRITING WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

    REASONS FOR ASSESSMENT OF COSTS BY: CHARLES E. STINSON

    DATED: August 19, 2004

    SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

    Lawson Lundell FOR THE APPLICANTS

    Yellowknife, NWT

    Field LLP FOR THE RESPONDENTS

    Yellowknife, NWT

    '
  sentences:
  - 'cluster: ANALYSIS:  The court considered the applicants'' bill of costs, which
    included items for preparation of originating documents, preparation for a contested
    motion, preparation for examination, and preparation for a status review. The
    respondents argued that certain items should be reduced or disallowed, while the
    applicants argued that the complexity and importance of the case justified the
    claimed costs. The court allowed 6 units for item 1, 5 units for item 5, 5 units
    for item 8, and 4 units for item 10. The court also noted that the challenges
    facing the administration of justice in Northern Canada, including geography and
    limited resources, were factors affecting the process of status review.'
  - 'cluster: CONCLUSION:  The court assessed the applicants'' bill of costs at $7,221.68,
    which is $588.50 less than the claimed amount of $7,810.18. The court''s assessment
    of costs reflects its exercise of discretion in taking into account the circumstances
    of the case, including the complexity and importance of the case, as well as the
    challenges facing the administration of justice in Northern Canada.'
  - 'cluster: ANALYSIS:  The court found that the Officer''s best interests of the
    child (BIOC) analysis was flawed and rendered the decision unreasonable. The Officer''s
    assessment was highly generalized and failed to properly identify and define the
    granddaughter''s needs or examine them with a great deal of attention. The Officer
    failed to consider the emotional and practical hardships the granddaughter would
    face if the person concerned was forced to leave the country, despite evidence
    of hardship on the record. The Officer also placed undue emphasis on the degree
    to which the granddaughter depends on the person concerned, rather than considering
    how the person concerned''s departure would impact the granddaughter in the particular
    circumstances of the case.'
- source_sentence: 'cluster: FACTS:  Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
    v. Imalenowa

    Court (s) Database

    Federal Court Decisions

    Date

    2022-09-13

    Neutral citation

    2022 FC 1286

    File numbers

    IMM-6854-21

    Decision Content

    Date: 20220913

    Docket: IMM-6854-21

    Citation: 2022 FC 1286

    Ottawa, Ontario, September 13, 2022

    PRESENT: The Hon Mr. Justice Henry S. Brown

    BETWEEN:

    THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY

    AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    Applicant

    and

    PRINCE UYI IMALENOWA

    Respondent

    JUDGMENT AND REASONS

    I. Nature of the matter

    [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration
    Appeal Division [IAD], dated September 22, 2021 [Decision], staying the Respondent’s
    removal from Canada. The Respondent is a 43-year-old permanent resident of Canada
    and citizen of Nigeria. The Immigration Division [ID] issued a removal order for
    reasons of serious criminality, because of the Respondent’s conviction for identity
    theft fraud involving as many as 50 individuals. He was convicted and sentenced
    on one count. The Respondent did not challenge the legality of the removal order,
    but sought a stay from the IAD on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds.

    [2] The Respondent based his request for H&C in part on a fraudulent letter from
    his ex-spouse in support. The IAD found he had fraudulently written and forged
    his ex-wife’s signature on the letter he gave it. The letter contained material
    falsehoods. He was found not credible, lacking remorse, did not appreciate the
    wrong he had done others and had other failings noted by the IAD.

    [3] That said, the IAD granted a stay, finding sufficient H&C grounds based on
    “moderate establishment” in Canada and “hardship” he would suffer if removed to
    Nigeria. The hardship was based mainly on the state of Nigeria’s healthcare system,
    the IAD finding among other things the Respondent would have to pay for his own
    drugs, which appears to be relatively common in Nigeria, but which creates hardship
    for indigent persons. The IAD found the Respondent could “re-establish himself
    in Nigeria and earn an average person’s wages” from which it appears he is not
    indigent.

    [4] The Applicant notes for the first time that the Respondent in his H&C relies
    on a list of prescriptions that weren’t his. The list was someone else’s prescription,
    which was agreed. The Respondent said the fault was with his doctor and or his
    lawyer, essentially asserting neither looked at them before they were filed with
    the IAD. I take it he also asserts the IAD likewise failed to examine them. The
    Respondent filed the proper list before this Court. Respondent’s counsel agreed
    I should not assess or weigh the different list, but also said essentially that
    the Court should not ignore his new evidence either. In addition, the medical
    records relied upon by the IAD were not updated after the ID and were by then
    2 ½ years old.

    [5] Judicial review will be granted because of my inability to assess the veracity
    and weight to be given the newly filed prescription list, which was central to
    the IAD’s determination of hardship, and issues with respect to the justification,
    rationality and intelligibility of the IAD’s determinations.

    II. Background Facts

    [6] The Respondent arrived in Canada in 2011 and made a refugee claim based on
    his fluid sexual orientation. His refugee claim was rejected.

    [7] He met someone in Canada and married her in 2012. The Respondent received
    his permanent residency through her sponsorship in 2013. The marriage lasted eighteen
    months or so and ended in divorce.

    [8] The Respondent was convicted in April 2018 of one count of identity fraud.
    The underlying activities took place between July and December 2014. The Respondent
    was originally charged with fraudulently impersonating at least 50 people to obtain
    credit cards in their names. His sentence included an intermittent jail sentence
    of 90 days and two years probation, as well as forfeiture and financial conditions.

    [9] Immigration authorities completed a section 44 report under the Immigration
    and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The Respondent had the opportunity
    to make submissions on H&C factors. As part of this process, the Respondent submitted
    a letter purportedly from his spouse. The IAD found the letter fraudulent – it
    was in fact written by the Respondent and contained false information and a forgery
    for a signature. For example, the letter was dated January 2019 and indicated
    the couple were married for almost seven years. In fact they were married for
    only 18 months and divorced in 2015.

    [10] As noted, the IAD found the Respondent forged the signature of his ex wife
    on the fraudulent letter, which I note praised the Respondent for his “honesty”,
    another falsehood.

    III. Decision under review

    [11] In granting the stay of removal, the IAD set out to review the Respondent’s
    H&C considerations in light of the factors established in Ribic v Canada (Minister
    of Employment and Immigration), 1986 CarswellNat 1357 at para 14 [Ribic]. The
    IAD considered “the seriousness of the offences giving rise to the removal order;
    the Appellant’s remorse; possibility of rehabilitation and the risk of reoffending;
    length of time spent in Canada; extent to which the Appellant is established in
    Canada; family support in Canada and the impact of removal upon the family; community
    support; and any hardship if the Appellant were to be removed to his country of
    citizenship.”

    [12] The IAD found the offence was serious: the conviction involved credit card
    fraud, which despite not being a violent crime, has “grave consequences for the
    victim” of which there were as many as 50.

    [13] The IAD found the Respondent “was not sincere when he expressed remorse”.
    The IAD found the Respondent lacked credibility when addressing both the conviction
    and the fraudulent letter. The IAD found that “[h]is submitting a forged letter
    to immigration authorities after having been convicted amounts to his committing
    a further fraud.”

    [14] Although the Respondent testified at the hearing that he did not know what
    he was doing with the credit cards was illegal, the IAD found this testimony untruthful
    and that the Respondent recognized he was involved in a criminal activity from
    the beginning. The IAD found the Respondent “wrote the letter himself, signed
    it fraudulently as his former spouse, and submitted it to immigration authorities.”

    [15] The IAD found the Respondent had not fully accepted responsibility for either
    of his actions, the criminal conviction or the fraudulent letter.

    [16] The IAD found the Respondent posed a “moderate risk” of reoffending based
    on his having no further convictions since the reportable offence. It also found
    he had a moderate possibility of rehabilitation. He had taken a number of courses
    and certificates to make himself more employable. He also completed his probation.
    The IAD noted that normally an individual with one conviction and attempts to
    rehabilitate himself would have a high possibility or rehabilitation and pose
    a low risk for reoffending.

    [17] However, the IAD found the Respondent did not appreciate the consequences
    of his actions, evidenced by his lack of credibility at the hearing and the fraudulent
    letter. The IAD found the Respondent had not “fully made efforts to address the
    factors that led to his criminal behaviour”, leading to the IAD concluding the
    Respondent had a moderate possibility of rehabilitation and a moderate risk of
    reoffending.

    [18] The IAD found the Respondent’s time in Canada was a moderately positive factor,
    as he had spent 10 years in Canada, but committed the offences within four years
    of arriving. The IAD also found the Respondent was only moderately established
    in Canada, as he owned no real estate and had no investments, but had a job, a
    car, and some savings. Notably, the record shows the steady job was recently acquired.

    [19] The IAD found the Respondent had no family support in Canada. It assigned
    little weight to the support letters he filed from his friends, because the letter
    he filed from his ex wife was fraudulent.

    [20] The IAD found the Respondent would suffer a hardship if he were removed to
    Nigeria due to diabetes, high cholesterol, a pulmonary embolism, cataracts, and
    a number of surgeries. However his medical records were two and a half years old
    and it appears not all of these conditions were still relevant. Although the submitted
    medical documents were dated to 2019, the IAD found it was more likely than not
    the Respondent was still affected by diabetes and the pulmonary embolism, again
    based on his testimony which this time it believed. Notably the IAD earlier rejected
    his testimony.

    [21] The IAD found the Respondent could “re-establish himself in Nigeria and earn
    an average person’s wages”, but that his medical conditions “would be difficult
    for him to address in Nigeria because of the state of the Nigerian healthcare
    system”. As previously noted it appears most Nigerians pay for their own medications.

    [22] The IAD found the best interests of the child were neutral. The Respondent
    has a 15-year-old daughter in the United States, but he had not seen her since
    she was seven – eight years ago. The Respondent’s relationship with his daughter
    was electronic and the IAD found returning the Respondent to Nigeria would have
    little impact on how he related to his child.

    IV. Issues

    [23] The Applicant submits “[t]he IAD’s decision lacks an internally coherent
    chain of analysis justified in relation to the facts”. The Respondent submits
    the issue is “[w]hether the decision is reasonable.”

    [24] Respectfully, the only issues are whether the Decision is reasonable, and
    whether this Court should assess the just now filed list of his prescriptions.

    V. Standard of Review

    [25] Both parties submit the standard on review should be reasonableness, per
    Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov].
    I agree. Regarding reasonableness, in Canada Post Corp v Canadian Union of Postal
    Workers, 2019 SCC 67, issued at the same time as the Supreme Court of Canada’s
    decision in Vavilov, the majority per Justice Rowe explains what is required for
    a reasonable decision, and what is required of a court reviewing on the reasonableness
    standard:

    [31] A reasonable decision is “one that is based on an internally coherent and
    rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and
    law that constrain the decision maker” (Vavilov, at para. 85). Accordingly, when
    conducting reasonableness review “[a] reviewing court must begin its inquiry into
    the reasonableness of a decision by examining the reasons provided with ‘respectful
    attention’ and seeking to understand the reasoning process followed by the decision
    maker to arrive at [the] conclusion” (Vavilov, at para. 84, quoting Dunsmuir,
    at para. 48). The reasons should be read holistically and contextually in order
    to understand “the basis on which a decision was made” (Vavilov, at para. 97,
    citing Newfoundland Nurses).

    [32] A reviewing court should consider whether the decision as a whole is reasonable:
    “what is reasonable in a given situation will always depend on the constraints
    imposed by the legal and factual context of the particular decision under review”
    (Vavilov, at para. 90). The reviewing court must ask “whether the decision bears
    the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification, transparency and intelligibility
    – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints
    that bear on the decision” (Vavilov, at para. 99, citing Dunsmuir, at paras. 47
    and 74, and Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (District), 2012 SCC 2, [2012]
    1 S.C.R. 5, at para. 13).

    [33] Under reasonableness review, “[t]he burden is on the party challenging the
    decision to show that it is unreasonable” (Vavilov, at para. 100). The challenging
    party must satisfy the court “that any shortcomings or flaws relied on ... are
    sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable” (Vavilov,
    at para. 100).

    [Emphasis added]

    [26] In the words of the Supreme Court of Canada in Vavilov, a reviewing court
    must be satisfied the decision-maker’s reasoning “adds up”:

    [104] Similarly, the internal rationality of a decision may be called into question
    if the reasons exhibit clear logical fallacies, such as circular reasoning, false
    dilemmas, unfounded generalizations or an absurd premise. This is not an invitation
    to hold administrative decision makers to the formalistic constraints and standards
    of academic logicians. However, a reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied
    that the decision maker’s reasoning “adds up”.

    [105] In addition to the need for internally coherent reasoning, a decision, to
    be reasonable, must be justified in relation to the constellation of law and facts
    that are relevant to the decision: Dunsmuir, at para. 47; Catalyst, at para. 13;
    Nor-Man Regional Health Authority, at para. 6. Elements of the legal and factual
    contexts of a decision operate as constraints on the decision maker in the exercise
    of its delegated powers.

    [Emphasis added]

    [27] The Supreme Court of Canada in Vavilov at para 86 states, “it is not enough
    for the outcome of a decision to be justifiable. Where reasons for a decision
    are required, the decision must also be justified, by way of those reasons, by
    the decision-maker to those to whom the decision applies,” and provides guidance
    that the reviewing court decide based on the record before them:

    [126] That being said, a reasonable decision is one that is justified in light
    of the facts: Dunsmuir, para. 47. The decision maker must take the evidentiary
    record and the general factual matrix that bears on its decision into account,
    and its decision must be reasonable in light of them: see Southam, at para. 56.
    The reasonableness of a decision may be jeopardized where the decision maker has
    fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it.
    In Baker, for example, the decision maker had relied on irrelevant stereotypes
    and failed to consider relevant evidence, which led to a conclusion that there
    was a reasonable apprehension of bias: para. 48. Moreover, the decision maker’s
    approach would also have supported a finding that the decision was unreasonable
    on the basis that the decision maker showed that his conclusions were not based
    on the evidence that was actually before him: para. 48.

    [Emphasis added]

    VI. Legislation

    [28] The IAD granted the stay pursuant to section 68(1) of the IRPA:

    Removal order stayed

    Sursis

    68(1) To stay a removal order, the Immigration Appeal Division must be satisfied,
    taking into account the best interests of a child directly affected by the decision,
    that sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special
    relief in light of all the circumstances of the case.

    68(1) Il est sursis à la mesure de renvoi sur preuve qu’il y a — compte tenu de
    l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant directement touché — des motifs d’ordre humanitaire
    justifiant, vu les autres circonstances de l’affaire, la prise de mesures spéciales.

    VII. Case law

    [29] In Ribic, the Immigration Appeal Board established an application for equitable
    jurisdiction under section 72(1)(b) of the Immigration Act, 1976, SC 1976-77,
    c 52 (the analogous provision in prior legislation) should consider the circumstances
    of the case, including:

    … the seriousness of the offence or offences leading to the deportation and the
    possibility of rehabilitation or in the alternative, the circumstances surrounding
    the failure to meet the conditions of admission which led to the deportation order.
    The Board looks to the length of time spent in Canada and the degree to which
    the appellant is established; family in Canada and the dislocation to that family
    that deportation of the appellant would cause; the support available for the appellant
    not only within the family but also within the community and the degree of hardship
    that would be caused to the appellant by his return to his country of nationality.
    While the general areas of review are similar in each case the facts are rarely,
    if ever, identical (Ribic at para 14).

    [30] In Chieu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 3 at
    para 77, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) endorsed the Ribic approach when assessing
    removals under section 70(1)(b) of the Immigration Act, RSC 1985, c I-2. The SCC
    confirmed the Ribic factors apply to IRPA in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
    v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 137.

    VIII. Analysis

    [31] The Applicant submits the Decision lacks an internally coherent chain of
    analysis and that the IAD granted exceptional relief on an unjustifiably low standard.
    Overall, I agree.

    [32] The Respondent submits the Applicant is asking the Court to reweigh the evidence
    and reach a different conclusion. The Respondent’s submissions focus on the broad,
    discretionary jurisdiction of the IAD regime and the SCC’s endorsement of the
    Ribic factors in Chieu and Khosa. The Respondent submits the IAD properly considered
    the Ribic factors in the Decision.

    A. The reasons lacked an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis

    (1) Medical conditions and records

    [33] The Applicant alleges the Decision lacks internal rationality in how the
    IAD treated the Respondent’s medical conditions and documents. First, the Applicant
    submits the IAD’s acceptance of the Respondent’s testimony on his continuing medical
    conditions in lieu of documentary support, given the credibility findings, was
    irrational. Second, the Applicant submits the IAD misapprehended evidence on a
    central aspect of the Decision.

    [34] In my view, the determinative issue is the treatment of the medical records.
    The Applicant submits, and I agree, that the IAD misapprehended evidence on a
    central aspect of the Decision. The Decision was largely based on the assertion
    the Respondent required prescription medication, but the prescription records
    submitted to the IAD were not the Respondent’s. The Respondent and his team produced
    and relied on someone else’s prescription list.

    [35] In effect the Respondent says neither he, his pharmacist, his lawyer nor
    the IAD actually looked at the prescriptions he filed with the IAD. Instead it
    seems it is up to the Court to assess this central new evidence de novo.

    [36] That said, a central and key findings of the IAD is the Respondent would
    suffer hardship caused by difficulty in obtaining his required medications in
    Nigeria. The IAD noted the Respondent’s medical documents were only dated to 2019,
    but found it was likely the Respondent was still affected by the conditions. Whether
    or not the Respondent requires prescription medication is therefore central to
    the Decision.

    [37] Yet, and with respect, we do not know whether and to what extent prescriptions
    are needed and for what and in what amounts, frequency or otherwise.

    [38] The Respondent acknowledges the prescription record was not in his name –
    although he has to because that is obvious on the record. He says an “accurate
    and updated Prescription history” is an exhibit attached to his Affidavit. I am
    unable to assess that assertion.

    [39] The prescription record submitted by the Respondent is dated December 7,
    2021, which is after the Decision was issued.

    [40] The Applicant contends the Respondent’s acknowledgement of the erroneous
    records and submission of revised records supports the argument the IAD misapprehended
    evidence on central aspect of decision. The Applicant further submits the provision
    of evidence dated after the Decision confirms the matter should be sent back for
    redetermination. I cannot but agree with these self evident submissions.

    [41] In my view, the entirely inappropriate and inaccurate prescription record
    filed, and the obvious inattention to it by all parties including the IAD are
    sufficient grounds to grant this judicial review. The hardship, particularly in
    obtaining prescription medications, was a key factor in the Decision granting
    the stay on H&C grounds. If the Respondent does not require prescription medication,
    that ground is invalid.

    [42] Further, the fact the issue was not raised at the hearing and the Respondent
    did not have an opportunity to address the issue, also supports allowing this
    application and remitting the Decision for redetermination.

    [43] Additionally, it is well established that judicial review is based on the
    material before the decision maker (Association of Universities and Colleges of
    Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at
    para 20). Therefore, this Court is unable to consider whether the updated medical
    records are sufficient to establish whether the Respondent still requires prescription
    medication.

    [44] Judicial review will be ordered on this ground.

    (2) Rehabilitation and reoffending

    [45] The Applicant also submits, and I also agree, there is a lack of internal
    rationality in the Decision that is “particularly obvious” in the IAD’s positive
    weighing of rehabilitation in light of the findings on lack of credibility, the
    absence of remorse, the lack of insight into his criminality, his moderate likelihood
    of reoffending and his lack of support not to mention the Respondent’s continued
    fraud on the IAD itself.

    [46] The IAD made numerous explicit findings on the Respondent’s lack of remorse
    and continued use of fraudulent documents. While the Applicant highlights a dozen
    of the IAD’s findings, some of the most significant are:

    “His submitting a forged letter to immigration authorities after having been convicted
    amounts to his committing a further fraud”;

    “His actions after his conviction and his lack of credibility at this hearing
    indicate that he does not appreciate the consequences of his actions”;

    “His submitting a fraudulent letter after committing fraud, then testifying in
    a way that is simply not credible, demonstrate that the Appellant has not fully
    made efforts to address the factors that led to his criminal behavior”; and

    “His submitting the letter mirrors the criminal offence that led to his removal
    order”. The Applicant did not highlight this finding, but in my view, this comment
    confirms the Respondent was still engaging in the same illegal behaviour that
    led to the removal order being issued in the first place.

    [47] In my respectful view, the IAD’s finding the Respondent “has a moderate possibility
    for rehabilitation and poses a moderate risk of reoffending” in light of the findings
    on the fraudulent letter and the Respondent’s lack of remorse is a close to if
    not a fatal flaw in the logic of the Decision. The IAD’s findings demonstrate
    that even during the removal proceedings, the Respondent engaged in the sort of
    fraudulent behaviour that led to his inadmissibility. The IAD does not indicate
    why, when the Respondent engaged in the same fraudulent activity, is not remorseful,
    and does not have insight into his criminality, it found his rehabilitation “a
    moderate possibility”. The fraudulent letter was submitted after the Respondent
    completed his probation, which further suggests those actions did not lead to
    rehabilitation, even moderately. In my view such conduct attacks the integrity
    of the immigration system and must be considered in light of constraining law
    to that effect.

    [48] The finding with respect to hardship in the absence of a pharmacy record
    is an obvious case of an unjustified and unintelligible finding leading to unreasonableness
    and judicial review. Again here, the IAD does not explain or come to grips with
    how the cascade of negative findings justify a finding of moderate likelihood
    of rehabilitation, particularly the blatant fraud on the IAD itself. The Decision
    does not indicate any programs, treatment, or therapy the Respondent has subsequently
    engaged in that might assist him in gaining insight into his criminal activities.
    I am compelled to conclude the finding of a “moderate possibility for rehabilitation”
    is neither justified nor intelligible and thus unreasonable per Vavilov.

    B. The IAD granted exceptional relief on an unreasonably low standard

    [49] The Applicant acknowledges the Court owes a high degree of deference to the
    IAD’s assessment of H&C factors, but submits the IAD granted H&C relief based
    only on some hardship without considering such relief is exceptional in nature,
    not routine. I agree. Such a finding is contrary to the majority judgment in Kanthasamy
    v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 [per Abella J] at para 23:
    “There will inevitably be some hardship associated with being required to leave
    Canada. This alone will not generally be sufficient to warrant relief on humanitarian
    and compassionate grounds” under section 25 of IRPA, and I would say the same
    for subsection 68(1) of IRPA.

    [50] Further, the Applicant asserts the IAD must not exercise its discretion routinely
    or lightly, and again I agree: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Ndir, 2020
    FC 673 [per St-Louis J] at para 31, 39; and Canada (Public Safety and Emergency
    Preparedness) v Abou Antoun, 2018 FC 540 [per Lafrenière J] at para 19.

    [51] Otherwise, H&C simply becomes an alternative routine and unexceptional immigration
    scheme, which it is not.

    [52] Judicial review will be granted on these grounds as well.

    IX. Conclusion

    [53] In my respectful view, the Decision is unreasonable for the reasons noted.
    Therefore judicial review will be granted.

    X. Certified Question

    [54] Neither party proposed a question of general importance and none arises.

    JUDGMENT in IMM-6854-21

    THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that judicial review is granted, the Decision of the
    IAD is set aside, this matter is remanded for reconsideration by a differently
    constituted IAD, no question of general importance is certified and there is no
    Order as to costs.

    "Henry S. Brown"

    Judge

    FEDERAL COURT

    SOLICITORS OF RECORD

    DOCKET:

    IMM-6854-21

    STYLE OF CAUSE:

    THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS v PRINCE UYI IMALENOWA

    PLACE OF HEARING:

    HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE

    DATE OF HEARING:

    SEPTEMBER 8, 2022

    JUDGMENT AND REASONS:

    BROWN J.

    DATED:

    SEPTEMBER 13, 2022

    APPEARANCES:

    Bradley Bechard

    FOR THE APPLICANT

    Adetayo G. Akinyemi

    FOR THE RESPONDENT

    SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

    Attorney General of Canada

    Toronto, Ontario

    FOR THE APPLICANT

    Adetayo G. Akinyemi

    Barrister and Solicitor

    Toronto, Ontario

    FOR THE RESPONDENT

    '
  sentences:
  - 'cluster: FACTS:  This case involves an application for judicial review of a decision
    by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) to stay the removal of a 43-year-old
    permanent resident of Canada, who is a citizen of Nigeria. The person concerned
    was convicted of identity theft fraud involving as many as 50 individuals and
    was sentenced to 90 days in jail and two years of probation. He did not challenge
    the legality of the removal order but sought a stay on humanitarian and compassionate
    (H&C) grounds. The IAD found that the person concerned had fraudulently written
    and forged his ex-wife''s signature on a letter he submitted in support of his
    H&C application. However, the IAD granted a stay, finding sufficient H&C grounds
    based on "moderate establishment" in Canada and "hardship" he would suffer if
    removed to Nigeria. The hardship was based mainly on the state of Nigeria''s healthcare
    system, where the person concerned would have to pay for his own medications.'
  - 'cluster: ISSUES:  The issue before the court was whether the PRRA Officer''s
    decision was reasonable, given the person concerned''s claims of risk in the DRC
    due to his untreated mental illness. The court had to determine whether the Officer''s
    findings regarding the availability of medical treatment and state protection
    in the DRC were supported by the evidence and whether the Officer had properly
    assessed the risks faced by the person concerned.'
  - 'cluster: RULES:  The court applied the reasonableness standard of review, as
    established in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019
    SCC 65. A reasonable decision is one that is based on an internally coherent and
    rational chain of analysis and that is justified in relation to the facts and
    law that constrain the decision-maker. The court must examine the reasons provided
    with "respectful attention" and seek to understand the reasoning process followed
    by the decision-maker to arrive at the conclusion.'
- source_sentence: 'cluster: ISSUES:  Abdou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

    Court (s) Database

    Federal Court Decisions

    Date

    2014-05-26

    Neutral citation

    2014 FC 500

    File numbers

    T-1638-13

    Decision Content

    Date: 20140526

    Docket:

    T-1638-13

    Citation: 2014 FC 500

    Ottawa, Ontario, May 26, 2014

    PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Manson

    BETWEEN:

    HATEM SALAMA RE ABDOU

    Applicant

    and

    THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

    Respondent

    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

    [1] This is an appeal of the decision of Wojciech Sniegowski, a Citizenship Judge
    with the Citizenship Commission, Immigration Canada [the Judge], pursuant to subsection
    14(5) of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 [the Act]. The Judge denied the
    Applicant’s application for Canadian citizenship by deciding that he did not meet
    the residency requirement as defined in 5(1)(c) of the Act. .

    I. Issues [2] The issues are:

    A. Was the Judge’s decision reasonable in finding that the Applicant did not meet
    the residency requirement in 5(1)(c) of the Act?

    B. Did the Judge breach the duty of procedural fairness?

    II. Standard of Review [3] The issues involving the assessment of evidence and
    of mixed fact and law are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness (Dunsmuir
    v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, at para 47-48 51, 53-54, 57, 62, 64; Singh v Canada
    (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 408 at para 10).

    [4] The issue of procedural fairness is reviewable on the standard of correctness
    (Dunsmuir, at paras 57, 79; Navidi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
    2012 FC 372, at para 13 [Navidi]).

    III. Background [5] The Applicant is a stateless individual who was born in Kuwait.
    He arrived in Canada on June 7, 2003, and became a Permanent Resident of Canada
    on that date. He made an application for Canadian citizenship on August 8, 2008.
    For purposes of the residency requirement in 5(1)(c) of the Act, the Relevant
    Period at issue is August 8, 2004, to August 8, 2008 [the Relevant Period].

    [6] In his original application for citizenship, the Applicant listed three absences
    from Canada totalling 354 days. This includes a 320 day absence to Kuwait from
    2004-2005. However, in his follow-up Residency Questionnaire, the Applicant listed
    only 34 days of absence, omitting the 320 day absence to Kuwait listed in his
    original application.

    [7] In support of his application, the Applicant submitted numerous documents,
    including:

    • Records with the Ontario Ministry of Health;

    • Notices of Assessment for 2003-2006, 2008;

    • Gas receipts;

    • Report cards for his children in Ontario schools;

    • Incorporation documents for 6612237 Canada Limited, a corporation for which
    the Applicant is an Officer and Director;

    • Banking records showing numerous wire transfers beginning in March, 2006;

    • Documentation pertaining to the removal of conditions that were imposed on him
    as a Permanent Resident;

    • Copies of two passports belonging to the Applicant. One is valid from September
    15, 2002, to October 2, 2004, and contains a Kuwaiti residence permit valid from
    September 24, 2001, to September 9, 2004. The other is valid from May 5, 2009,
    to May 4, 2014, and contains a Kuwaiti residence permit valid from May 20, 2009,
    to July 3, 2010;

    • A Citizen’s Report from the Hamilton Police Service, which notes that his passport
    was not recovered after a stolen vehicle was returned to the Applicant, on or
    around October 3, 2007; and

    • Documents regarding financial and real estate dealings.

    [8] The Applicant did not submit a passport which covered the period from September
    10, 2004, to May 4, 2009.

    [9] The Applicant had an interview before the Judge on April 18, 2013.

    [10] The Judge evaluated whether the Applicant met the residency requirement in
    5(1)(c) of the Act in accordance with the test from (Re) Pourghasemi, [1993] FCJ
    No 232 (TD) [Pourghasemi]. In so doing, the Judge was not satisfied that the Applicant
    had proven that he was physically present in Canada for 1,095 days during the
    relevant period.

    [11] The Judge noted credibility concerns regarding the discrepancy between the
    absences listed on his original application (354 days) and his residence questionnaire
    (34 days). Additionally, without a passport submitted that was valid for the bulk
    of the Relevant Period, his absences were not verifiable.

    [12] The Judge found that the banking records submitted to prove the sale of construction
    equipment were more consistent with money transfers aimed at supporting family
    in Canada. This is supported by the fact that on his Residence Questionnaire,
    the Applicant claimed he sold his construction company in 2004.

    [13] Further, the Judge found that the lack of any reported income in 2003 and
    2004 does not support his contention that he lived in Canada during the Relevant
    Period.

    [14] Based on the information submitted, the Judge was not satisfied that he had
    met the test from Pourghasemi (Atwani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
    2011 FC 1354, at paras 12, 18).

    IV. Analysis A. Was the Judge’s decision reasonable? [15] The Applicant makes
    limited submissions on the reasonableness of the Judge’s decision. His arguments
    amount to a claim that the Judge failed to properly consider the evidence of the
    Applicant’s Ministry of Health records, gas receipts, and documentation pertaining
    to the removal of conditions imposed on him as a Permanent Resident.

    [16] While the Judge did not cite all the evidence mentioned by the Respondent,
    as a whole the Judge’s decision was reasonable. There was a significant discrepancy
    between the absences declared in the Applicant’s original application and his
    Residence Questionnaire. The lack of a passport to verify these absences leaves
    the Applicant without clear or convincing evidence of his physical presence in
    Canada during the Relevant Period. In addition, it was reasonable of the Judge
    to find that the money transfers were more consistent with supporting family in
    Canada than of the gradual selling of construction equipment, given that the Applicant
    claimed he sold his construction equipment in 2004.

    [17] The Applicant’s arguments amount to assertions that the Judge failed to appropriately
    consider the evidence. This is not sufficient to show that the Judge’s decision
    was unreasonable.

    B. Did the Judge breach the duty of procedural fairness? [18] The Applicant notes
    that section 1.10 of the Citizenship Policy Manual [the Manual] suggests that
    a high degree of procedural fairness may be required of a citizenship judge due
    to the nature of the rights at issue. At sections 1.12 and 1.19 of the Manual,
    the content of this duty is described as including the right to be heard and that
    it may be unfair for a citizenship judge to base a decision on information that
    the applicant has not had an opportunity to comment on.

    [19] The Applicant argues that he was never given an opportunity to address a
    number of the Judge’s concerns. First, the Judge did not question him about the
    discrepancy in the absences declared in his citizenship application and his Residence
    Questionnaire. Second, the Judge did not give the Applicant an opportunity to
    explain why he was unable to submit a passport to corroborate his stated absences.
    Third, the Judge drew a negative inference from the Applicant’s history of money
    transfers, without giving the Applicant an opportunity to explain how these transfers
    reflect Kuwaiti business practices.

    [20] As these findings were central to the Judge’s decision, the Applicant argues
    that he ought to have been given an opportunity to respond to them.

    [21] At paras 8 and 10-12 of his affidavit, the Applicant describes a number of
    issues that were not raised by the Judge in his interview:

    8. At the outset of the interview, the citizenship judge flatly told me he did
    not want to see any documents that I had in my possession. The citizenship judge
    was mainly focussed on questioning me about the money I brought to Canada by means
    of selling heavy construction equipment in Kuwait…

    10…I was never questioned by the citizenship judge at my interview concerning
    the discrepancy which I was in a position to explain and satisfy the citizenship
    judge as to why and how the discrepancy came about.

    11…the citizenship judge did not provide me with an opportunity to address his
    concerns concerning the missing passport and if he had allowed me the opportunity
    to address his concerns, I would have been able to provide evidence concerning
    my trips during the years 2004 and 2009 outside Canada.

    12…I was not questioned by the citizenship judge concerning any medical problems
    that my family members had during the time I was in Canada and if he had done
    so, I would have been in a position to show the citizenship judge that I had to
    be in Canada for approximately one year when my daughter, Tala lost an eye due
    to an accident which occurred in or about October 2006.

    [22] This summary is supported by the notes of the interview provided by the Judge
    at pages 30-32 of the Certified Tribunal Record. These notes primarily relate
    to the money the Applicant brought into Canada, the alleged sale of heavy construction
    equipment by the Applicant, and some background information.

    [23] A fair reading of the Applicant’s affidavit and the Judge’s notes shows that
    the Judge did not focus his questioning on the discrepancy in the absences declared,
    the lost passport, or the other documentary evidence submitted.

    [24] The content of the procedural fairness required of a Judge in the context
    of a citizenship interview was described in Johar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
    and Immigration), 2009 FC 1015, at para 41 [Johar]:

    The Citizenship Judge is not obligated to provide an appellant with an opportunity
    to file additional material. The process cannot become a running commentary on
    the adequacy of the appellant''s evidence (Zheng v. Canada (MCI), 2007 FC 1311,
    163 A.C.W.S. (3d) 120, per Justice Simpson at para. 14). However, it is well established
    that an interview with the Citizenship Judge is "clearly intended to provide the
    candidate the opportunity to answer or, at the very least, address the concerns
    which gave rise to the request for an interview in the first place", and when
    an appellant is deprived of the opportunity to address those concerns, a denial
    of natural justice occurs (Stine v. Canada (MCI), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1264 (QL),
    173 F.T.R. 298, per Justice Pelletier at para. 8; Tshimanga v. Canada (MCI), 2005
    FC 1579, 151 A.C.W.S. (3d) 18, per Deputy Justice Rouleau at para. 17-19).

    At issue in Johar was a lost passport and credibility concerns relating to that
    loss, similar to this case.

    [25] The Respondent cites Navidi in support of its position. In Navidi, the applicant’s
    travel history included a number of undeclared absences. The judge held that this
    undermined the applicant’s credibility and none of the other evidence submitted
    by the applicant was sufficient to show that 5(1)(c) of the Act was satisfied.
    The applicant claimed that he had not been afforded due procedural fairness as
    he was not given an opportunity to respond to the negative credibility finding
    in his interview. However, in Navidi, the judge did request additional submissions
    of the applicant (Navidi, at para 31).

    [26] The Judge’s decision in this appeal hinged on a negative credibility finding,
    based on the discrepancy in the absences declared by the Applicant. As in Johar,
    the Judge did not raise this discrepancy with the Applicant. Given the necessary
    procedural fairness afforded to applicants in citizenship applications and the
    centrality of this issue to the Applicant’s claim, I find that there was a breach
    of procedural fairness.

    JUDGMENT

    THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

    1. The Applicant’s appeal is allowed and his application is referred back to another
    Citizenship Judge for re-determination.

    "Michael D. Manson"

    Judge

    FEDERAL COURT

    SOLICITORS OF RECORD

    DOCKET:

    T-1638-13

    STYLE OF CAUSE:

    HATEM SALAMA RE ABDOU v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

    PLACE OF HEARING:

    Toronto, ontario

    DATE OF HEARING:

    May 21, 2014

    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT:

    MANSON J.

    DATED:

    May 26, 2014

    APPEARANCES:

    Donald Greenbaum

    For The Applicant,

    HATEM SALAMA RE ABDOU

    Suzanne M. Bruce

    For The Respondent,

    THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

    SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

    Donald M. Greenbaum, QC

    Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public

    Toronto, Ontario

    For The Applicant,

    HATEM SALAMA RE ABDOU

    William F. Pentney

    Deputy Attorney General of Canada

    Toronto, Ontario

    For The Respondent,

    THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

    '
  sentences:
  - 'cluster: SUMMARY:  **(1) Facts**


    The person concerned, a former member of the Canadian Forces, applied to the Minister
    of Veterans Affairs for a pension in respect of recurrent inversion sprains of
    his right ankle, which he alleged was consequential to his pensioned condition
    of pes planus. The Minister refused to extend pension entitlement, and the decision
    was affirmed by the review panel and appeal panel of the Veterans Review and Appeal
    Board. The person concerned sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that
    the Board erred in concluding that the inversion sprain was not consequent to
    his existing pensioned conditions.


    The person concerned had served in the Canadian Forces for over 20 years, during
    which time he developed eight disabilities for which he received disability pensions,
    including pes planus of both feet. He applied for a pension in respect of recurrent
    inversion sprains of his right ankle, which he alleged was consequential to his
    pensioned condition of pes planus. The Minister refused to extend pension entitlement,
    and the decision was affirmed by the review panel and appeal panel of the Board.


    **(2) Issue**


    The issue before the court was whether the Board erred in concluding that the
    inversion sprain was not consequent to the person concerned''s existing pensioned
    conditions. This question turned on two issues: (1) did the Board disregard the
    medical evidence; and (2) did the Board fail to apply the statutory burden of
    proof under the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act.


    **(3) Rule**


    The court applied the standard of review of patent unreasonableness for questions
    of fact and reasonableness simpliciter for questions of mixed law and fact. The
    court also considered the statutory rules of evidence binding the Board, which
    required it to accept uncontradicted evidence, draw all reasonable inferences
    in favour of the applicant, and resolve any doubt in favour of the applicant.


    **(4) Analysis**


    The court found that the Board made a patently unreasonable credibility finding
    with respect to the medical opinion of Dr. Saunders, who had a historical professional
    relationship with the person concerned and had physically examined him. The Board
    failed to refer to Dr. Saunders'' evidence that he was the person concerned''s
    physician and had examined him, which was relevant to the decision under review.
    The court also found that the Board erred by not making clear whether it applied
    the statutory burden of proof in section 39 of the Veterans Review and Appeal
    Act to the facts.


    **(5) Conclusion**


    The court concluded that the Board''s decision did not stand up to a probing examination
    and was therefore not reasonable. The court referred the matter back to another
    panel of the Board for redetermination, with instructions to weigh the evidence
    and apply the statutory burden of proof. If the Board concludes that the person
    concerned''s recurrent inversion sprains of his right ankle are consequential
    to his pes planus, the Board must take into account that the person concerned
    is already receiving a small pension with respect to this same ankle injury.'
  - 'cluster: CONCLUSION:  The court allowed the person concerned''s appeal and referred
    his application back to another Citizenship Judge for re-determination. The court''s
    decision was based on the finding that the Judge''s decision was not reasonable
    and that the Judge breached the duty of procedural fairness. The court''s decision
    highlights the importance of procedural fairness in citizenship applications and
    the need for Citizenship Judges to provide applicants with a fair opportunity
    to address concerns raised during the interview.'
  - 'cluster: ISSUES:  The issues before the court were whether the Judge''s decision
    to deny the person concerned''s application for Canadian citizenship was reasonable
    and whether the Judge breached the duty of procedural fairness. Specifically,
    the court had to determine whether the Judge''s decision was based on a reasonable
    assessment of the evidence and whether the person concerned was given a fair opportunity
    to address the concerns raised by the Judge during the interview.'
pipeline_tag: sentence-similarity
library_name: sentence-transformers
---

# SentenceTransformer based on nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5

This is a [sentence-transformers](https://www.SBERT.net) model finetuned from [nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5](https://huggingface.co/nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5). It maps sentences & paragraphs to a 768-dimensional dense vector space and can be used for semantic textual similarity, semantic search, paraphrase mining, text classification, clustering, and more.

## Model Details

### Model Description
- **Model Type:** Sentence Transformer
- **Base model:** [nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5](https://huggingface.co/nomic-ai/nomic-embed-text-v1.5) <!-- at revision 679199c2575b5bfe93b06161d06cd7c16ebe4124 -->
- **Maximum Sequence Length:** 8192 tokens
- **Output Dimensionality:** 768 dimensions
- **Similarity Function:** Cosine Similarity
<!-- - **Training Dataset:** Unknown -->
<!-- - **Language:** Unknown -->
<!-- - **License:** Unknown -->

### Model Sources

- **Documentation:** [Sentence Transformers Documentation](https://sbert.net)
- **Repository:** [Sentence Transformers on GitHub](https://github.com/UKPLab/sentence-transformers)
- **Hugging Face:** [Sentence Transformers on Hugging Face](https://huggingface.co/models?library=sentence-transformers)

### Full Model Architecture

```
SentenceTransformer(
  (0): Transformer({'max_seq_length': 8192, 'do_lower_case': False}) with Transformer model: NomicBertModel 
  (1): Pooling({'word_embedding_dimension': 768, 'pooling_mode_cls_token': False, 'pooling_mode_mean_tokens': True, 'pooling_mode_max_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_mean_sqrt_len_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_weightedmean_tokens': False, 'pooling_mode_lasttoken': False, 'include_prompt': True})
)
```

## Usage

### Direct Usage (Sentence Transformers)

First install the Sentence Transformers library:

```bash
pip install -U sentence-transformers
```

Then you can load this model and run inference.
```python
from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer

# Download from the 🤗 Hub
model = SentenceTransformer("simonosgoode/nomic_embed_fine_tune_law_v3")
# Run inference
sentences = [
    'cluster: ISSUES:  Abdou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)\nCourt (s) Database\nFederal Court Decisions\nDate\n2014-05-26\nNeutral citation\n2014 FC 500\nFile numbers\nT-1638-13\nDecision Content\nDate: 20140526\nDocket:\nT-1638-13\nCitation: 2014 FC 500\nOttawa, Ontario, May 26, 2014\nPRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Manson\nBETWEEN:\nHATEM SALAMA RE ABDOU\nApplicant\nand\nTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION\nRespondent\nREASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT\n[1] This is an appeal of the decision of Wojciech Sniegowski, a Citizenship Judge with the Citizenship Commission, Immigration Canada [the Judge], pursuant to subsection 14(5) of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 [the Act]. The Judge denied the Applicant’s application for Canadian citizenship by deciding that he did not meet the residency requirement as defined in 5(1)(c) of the Act. .\nI. Issues [2] The issues are:\nA. Was the Judge’s decision reasonable in finding that the Applicant did not meet the residency requirement in 5(1)(c) of the Act?\nB. Did the Judge breach the duty of procedural fairness?\nII. Standard of Review [3] The issues involving the assessment of evidence and of mixed fact and law are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, at para 47-48 51, 53-54, 57, 62, 64; Singh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 408 at para 10).\n[4] The issue of procedural fairness is reviewable on the standard of correctness (Dunsmuir, at paras 57, 79; Navidi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 372, at para 13 [Navidi]).\nIII. Background [5] The Applicant is a stateless individual who was born in Kuwait. He arrived in Canada on June 7, 2003, and became a Permanent Resident of Canada on that date. He made an application for Canadian citizenship on August 8, 2008. For purposes of the residency requirement in 5(1)(c) of the Act, the Relevant Period at issue is August 8, 2004, to August 8, 2008 [the Relevant Period].\n[6] In his original application for citizenship, the Applicant listed three absences from Canada totalling 354 days. This includes a 320 day absence to Kuwait from 2004-2005. However, in his follow-up Residency Questionnaire, the Applicant listed only 34 days of absence, omitting the 320 day absence to Kuwait listed in his original application.\n[7] In support of his application, the Applicant submitted numerous documents, including:\n• Records with the Ontario Ministry of Health;\n• Notices of Assessment for 2003-2006, 2008;\n• Gas receipts;\n• Report cards for his children in Ontario schools;\n• Incorporation documents for 6612237 Canada Limited, a corporation for which the Applicant is an Officer and Director;\n• Banking records showing numerous wire transfers beginning in March, 2006;\n• Documentation pertaining to the removal of conditions that were imposed on him as a Permanent Resident;\n• Copies of two passports belonging to the Applicant. One is valid from September 15, 2002, to October 2, 2004, and contains a Kuwaiti residence permit valid from September 24, 2001, to September 9, 2004. The other is valid from May 5, 2009, to May 4, 2014, and contains a Kuwaiti residence permit valid from May 20, 2009, to July 3, 2010;\n• A Citizen’s Report from the Hamilton Police Service, which notes that his passport was not recovered after a stolen vehicle was returned to the Applicant, on or around October 3, 2007; and\n• Documents regarding financial and real estate dealings.\n[8] The Applicant did not submit a passport which covered the period from September 10, 2004, to May 4, 2009.\n[9] The Applicant had an interview before the Judge on April 18, 2013.\n[10] The Judge evaluated whether the Applicant met the residency requirement in 5(1)(c) of the Act in accordance with the test from (Re) Pourghasemi, [1993] FCJ No 232 (TD) [Pourghasemi]. In so doing, the Judge was not satisfied that the Applicant had proven that he was physically present in Canada for 1,095 days during the relevant period.\n[11] The Judge noted credibility concerns regarding the discrepancy between the absences listed on his original application (354 days) and his residence questionnaire (34 days). Additionally, without a passport submitted that was valid for the bulk of the Relevant Period, his absences were not verifiable.\n[12] The Judge found that the banking records submitted to prove the sale of construction equipment were more consistent with money transfers aimed at supporting family in Canada. This is supported by the fact that on his Residence Questionnaire, the Applicant claimed he sold his construction company in 2004.\n[13] Further, the Judge found that the lack of any reported income in 2003 and 2004 does not support his contention that he lived in Canada during the Relevant Period.\n[14] Based on the information submitted, the Judge was not satisfied that he had met the test from Pourghasemi (Atwani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1354, at paras 12, 18).\nIV. Analysis A. Was the Judge’s decision reasonable? [15] The Applicant makes limited submissions on the reasonableness of the Judge’s decision. His arguments amount to a claim that the Judge failed to properly consider the evidence of the Applicant’s Ministry of Health records, gas receipts, and documentation pertaining to the removal of conditions imposed on him as a Permanent Resident.\n[16] While the Judge did not cite all the evidence mentioned by the Respondent, as a whole the Judge’s decision was reasonable. There was a significant discrepancy between the absences declared in the Applicant’s original application and his Residence Questionnaire. The lack of a passport to verify these absences leaves the Applicant without clear or convincing evidence of his physical presence in Canada during the Relevant Period. In addition, it was reasonable of the Judge to find that the money transfers were more consistent with supporting family in Canada than of the gradual selling of construction equipment, given that the Applicant claimed he sold his construction equipment in 2004.\n[17] The Applicant’s arguments amount to assertions that the Judge failed to appropriately consider the evidence. This is not sufficient to show that the Judge’s decision was unreasonable.\nB. Did the Judge breach the duty of procedural fairness? [18] The Applicant notes that section 1.10 of the Citizenship Policy Manual [the Manual] suggests that a high degree of procedural fairness may be required of a citizenship judge due to the nature of the rights at issue. At sections 1.12 and 1.19 of the Manual, the content of this duty is described as including the right to be heard and that it may be unfair for a citizenship judge to base a decision on information that the applicant has not had an opportunity to comment on.\n[19] The Applicant argues that he was never given an opportunity to address a number of the Judge’s concerns. First, the Judge did not question him about the discrepancy in the absences declared in his citizenship application and his Residence Questionnaire. Second, the Judge did not give the Applicant an opportunity to explain why he was unable to submit a passport to corroborate his stated absences. Third, the Judge drew a negative inference from the Applicant’s history of money transfers, without giving the Applicant an opportunity to explain how these transfers reflect Kuwaiti business practices.\n[20] As these findings were central to the Judge’s decision, the Applicant argues that he ought to have been given an opportunity to respond to them.\n[21] At paras 8 and 10-12 of his affidavit, the Applicant describes a number of issues that were not raised by the Judge in his interview:\n8. At the outset of the interview, the citizenship judge flatly told me he did not want to see any documents that I had in my possession. The citizenship judge was mainly focussed on questioning me about the money I brought to Canada by means of selling heavy construction equipment in Kuwait…\n10…I was never questioned by the citizenship judge at my interview concerning the discrepancy which I was in a position to explain and satisfy the citizenship judge as to why and how the discrepancy came about.\n11…the citizenship judge did not provide me with an opportunity to address his concerns concerning the missing passport and if he had allowed me the opportunity to address his concerns, I would have been able to provide evidence concerning my trips during the years 2004 and 2009 outside Canada.\n12…I was not questioned by the citizenship judge concerning any medical problems that my family members had during the time I was in Canada and if he had done so, I would have been in a position to show the citizenship judge that I had to be in Canada for approximately one year when my daughter, Tala lost an eye due to an accident which occurred in or about October 2006.\n[22] This summary is supported by the notes of the interview provided by the Judge at pages 30-32 of the Certified Tribunal Record. These notes primarily relate to the money the Applicant brought into Canada, the alleged sale of heavy construction equipment by the Applicant, and some background information.\n[23] A fair reading of the Applicant’s affidavit and the Judge’s notes shows that the Judge did not focus his questioning on the discrepancy in the absences declared, the lost passport, or the other documentary evidence submitted.\n[24] The content of the procedural fairness required of a Judge in the context of a citizenship interview was described in Johar v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1015, at para 41 [Johar]:\nThe Citizenship Judge is not obligated to provide an appellant with an opportunity to file additional material. The process cannot become a running commentary on the adequacy of the appellant\'s evidence (Zheng v. Canada (MCI), 2007 FC 1311, 163 A.C.W.S. (3d) 120, per Justice Simpson at para. 14). However, it is well established that an interview with the Citizenship Judge is "clearly intended to provide the candidate the opportunity to answer or, at the very least, address the concerns which gave rise to the request for an interview in the first place", and when an appellant is deprived of the opportunity to address those concerns, a denial of natural justice occurs (Stine v. Canada (MCI), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1264 (QL), 173 F.T.R. 298, per Justice Pelletier at para. 8; Tshimanga v. Canada (MCI), 2005 FC 1579, 151 A.C.W.S. (3d) 18, per Deputy Justice Rouleau at para. 17-19).\nAt issue in Johar was a lost passport and credibility concerns relating to that loss, similar to this case.\n[25] The Respondent cites Navidi in support of its position. In Navidi, the applicant’s travel history included a number of undeclared absences. The judge held that this undermined the applicant’s credibility and none of the other evidence submitted by the applicant was sufficient to show that 5(1)(c) of the Act was satisfied. The applicant claimed that he had not been afforded due procedural fairness as he was not given an opportunity to respond to the negative credibility finding in his interview. However, in Navidi, the judge did request additional submissions of the applicant (Navidi, at para 31).\n[26] The Judge’s decision in this appeal hinged on a negative credibility finding, based on the discrepancy in the absences declared by the Applicant. As in Johar, the Judge did not raise this discrepancy with the Applicant. Given the necessary procedural fairness afforded to applicants in citizenship applications and the centrality of this issue to the Applicant’s claim, I find that there was a breach of procedural fairness.\nJUDGMENT\nTHIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:\n1. The Applicant’s appeal is allowed and his application is referred back to another Citizenship Judge for re-determination.\n"Michael D. Manson"\nJudge\nFEDERAL COURT\nSOLICITORS OF RECORD\nDOCKET:\nT-1638-13\nSTYLE OF CAUSE:\nHATEM SALAMA RE ABDOU v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION\nPLACE OF HEARING:\nToronto, ontario\nDATE OF HEARING:\nMay 21, 2014\nREASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT:\nMANSON J.\nDATED:\nMay 26, 2014\nAPPEARANCES:\nDonald Greenbaum\nFor The Applicant,\nHATEM SALAMA RE ABDOU\nSuzanne M. Bruce\nFor The Respondent,\nTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION\nSOLICITORS OF RECORD:\nDonald M. Greenbaum, QC\nBarrister, Solicitor & Notary Public\nToronto, Ontario\nFor The Applicant,\nHATEM SALAMA RE ABDOU\nWilliam F. Pentney\nDeputy Attorney General of Canada\nToronto, Ontario\nFor The Respondent,\nTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION\n',
    "cluster: ISSUES:  The issues before the court were whether the Judge's decision to deny the person concerned's application for Canadian citizenship was reasonable and whether the Judge breached the duty of procedural fairness. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Judge's decision was based on a reasonable assessment of the evidence and whether the person concerned was given a fair opportunity to address the concerns raised by the Judge during the interview.",
    "cluster: CONCLUSION:  The court allowed the person concerned's appeal and referred his application back to another Citizenship Judge for re-determination. The court's decision was based on the finding that the Judge's decision was not reasonable and that the Judge breached the duty of procedural fairness. The court's decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness in citizenship applications and the need for Citizenship Judges to provide applicants with a fair opportunity to address concerns raised during the interview.",
]
embeddings = model.encode(sentences)
print(embeddings.shape)
# [3, 768]

# Get the similarity scores for the embeddings
similarities = model.similarity(embeddings, embeddings)
print(similarities.shape)
# [3, 3]
```

<!--
### Direct Usage (Transformers)

<details><summary>Click to see the direct usage in Transformers</summary>

</details>
-->

<!--
### Downstream Usage (Sentence Transformers)

You can finetune this model on your own dataset.

<details><summary>Click to expand</summary>

</details>
-->

<!--
### Out-of-Scope Use

*List how the model may foreseeably be misused and address what users ought not to do with the model.*
-->

<!--
## Bias, Risks and Limitations

*What are the known or foreseeable issues stemming from this model? You could also flag here known failure cases or weaknesses of the model.*
-->

<!--
### Recommendations

*What are recommendations with respect to the foreseeable issues? For example, filtering explicit content.*
-->

## Training Details

### Training Dataset

#### Unnamed Dataset


* Size: 12,750 training samples
* Columns: <code>anchor</code>, <code>positive</code>, and <code>negative</code>
* Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:
  |         | anchor                                                                                  | positive                                                                              | negative                                                                              |
  |:--------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | type    | string                                                                                  | string                                                                                | string                                                                                |
  | details | <ul><li>min: 370 tokens</li><li>mean: 3019.34 tokens</li><li>max: 6550 tokens</li></ul> | <ul><li>min: 27 tokens</li><li>mean: 211.22 tokens</li><li>max: 1042 tokens</li></ul> | <ul><li>min: 32 tokens</li><li>mean: 223.91 tokens</li><li>max: 1261 tokens</li></ul> |
* Samples:
  | anchor                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | positive                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | negative                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
  |:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | <code>cluster: ISSUES:  Woodbine Entertainment Group v. Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association<br>Court (s) Database<br>Federal Court Decisions<br>Date<br>2004-11-04<br>Neutral citation<br>2004 FC 1554<br>File numbers<br>T-466-03<br>Decision Content<br>Date: 20041104<br>Docket: T-466-03<br>Citation: 2004 FC 1554<br>BETWEEN:<br>WOODBINE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP<br>Applicant<br>and<br>HORSEMEN'S BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION<br>OF ONTARIO, ONTARIO HARNESS HORSE ASSOCIATION and<br>CANADIAN PARI-MUTUEL AGENCY<br>Respondents<br>REASONS FOR ORDER<br>SIMPSON, J.<br>The Applications<br>[1] In the first application, the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of Ontario ("HBPA") and the Ontario Harness Horse Association ("OHHA") (together the "Associations") seek judicial review of a decision dated December 18, 2002 (the "Decision") made by the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency ("CPMA") in which it issued a license to Woodbine Entertainment Group ("WEG") to conduct wagering on simulcast horse racing in calendar year 2003 (the "Merits Application").<br>[2] Th...</code>    | <code>cluster: ISSUES:  The issue before the court is whether the CPMA's decision to issue a license to WEG in the absence of a Pre-License Agreement with the HBPA and OHHA is valid, and whether the Betting Regulations require such an agreement to be in place before a license can be issued. The HBPA and OHHA seek a writ of prohibition, certiorari, and a declaration that the issuance of licenses by the CPMA in the absence of a Pre-License Agreement is a nullity. WEG, on the other hand, seeks a declaration that certain sections of the Betting Regulations are ultra vires of the Parliament of Canada.</code>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       | <code>cluster: FACTS:  This case revolves around a dispute between Woodbine Entertainment Group (WEG) and the Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association of Ontario (HBPA) and the Ontario Harness Horse Association (OHHA) regarding the issuance of a license to WEG to conduct wagering on simulcast horse racing in Ontario. The HBPA and OHHA are associations representing horsemen who are members of the thoroughbred and standardbred racing industries, respectively. WEG operates horse racing tracks and wagering facilities in Ontario. The Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency (CPMA) is a national regulatory unit that enforces the Pari-Mutuel Betting Supervision Regulations (Betting Regulations).In 2002, the CPMA issued a license to WEG to conduct wagering on simulcast horse racing in 2003, despite the fact that WEG had not entered into a Pre-License Agreement with the HBPA and OHHA, which are typically required by the Betting Regulations. The CPMA accepted 150 Access Agreements signed by individual hors...</code> |
  | <code>cluster: ANALYSIS:  D Souza v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)<br>Court (s) Database<br>Federal Court Decisions<br>Date<br>2021-12-16<br>Neutral citation<br>2021 FC 1430<br>File numbers<br>IMM-6744-19<br>Decision Content<br>Date: 20211216<br>Docket: IMM-6744-19<br>Citation: 2021 FC 1430<br>Ottawa, Ontario, December 16, 2021<br>PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Favel<br>BETWEEN:<br>RESHMA ANITHA D SOUZA<br>Applicant<br>and<br>THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION<br>Respondent<br>JUDGMENT AND REASONS<br>I. Nature of the Matter<br>[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a November 5, 2019 re-determination decision [Decision] of a visa officer [Officer] pursuant to section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The Officer refused the Applicant’s application for a temporary resident visa and work permit [the Application] because the Officer was not satisfied that the Applicant’s offer of employment [Employment Offer] was genuine.<br>[2] The application for judicial review is allowed.<br>II. Background<br>[3] The Appl...</code> | <code>cluster: ANALYSIS:  The court finds that the decision of the visa officer was not reasonable. The officer overlooked or misapprehended material evidence, including the couple's explanation for the reduction in work hours and the female employer's prospects of future employment. The officer also made several errors regarding the couple's ability to fulfill the terms of the employment offer, including their financial situation and the number of hours they would need to hire a caregiver. The court finds that the officer's findings were speculative and not based on the evidence.The court also finds that the decision is not justified, transparent, and intelligible. The officer's conclusion that the employment offer was not genuine is not supported by the evidence, and the officer failed to consider the couple's explanations and submissions.</code>                                                                                                                                                             | <code>cluster: ISSUES:  The main issue before the court is whether the decision of the visa officer to refuse the person concerned's application for a temporary resident visa and work permit was reasonable. The court also considers whether it should enter an indirect substitution or make a cost order in favour of the person concerned.</code>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
  | <code>cluster: FACTS:  Bellosillo v. Canada<br>Court (s) Database<br>Federal Court Decisions<br>Date<br>2006-03-28<br>Neutral citation<br>2006 FC 396<br>File numbers<br>T-501-06<br>Decision Content<br>Date: 20060328<br>Docket: T-501-06<br>Citation: 2006 FC 396<br>Ottawa, Ontario, March 28, 2006<br>PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau<br>BETWEEN:<br>ARIEL JOHN BELLOSILLO<br>Plaintiff<br>and<br>HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,<br>CORRECTIONAL SERVICE OF CANADA<br>INSTITUTIONAL HEAD OF WARKWORTH INSTITUTION<br>Defendants<br>REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER<br>[1] The Plaintiff is an inmate in Warkworth Institution, a penitentiary under the management and control of Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). He is currently incarcerated for an indeterminate period as a dangerous offender, having been convicted of two counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm and two counts of overcoming resistance to commit an offence by administering a drug.<br>[2] The Plaintiff is required under a Warrant Remanding a Prisoner issued by a Justice of the Peace for Ontario to attend in Provinci...</code>    | <code>cluster: FACTS:  The person concerned is an inmate in Warkworth Institution, a penitentiary managed by Correctional Service of Canada (CSC). He is serving an indeterminate sentence as a dangerous offender for various sexual assault charges. The person concerned has been ordered to attend Provincial Court in Ottawa on March 30, 2006, to answer to new charges. As a result, he is required to be transferred from Warkworth Institution to the Assessment Unit of Millhaven Institution, and then to the Ottawa Detention Centre. The person concerned has filed a motion for an interim injunction to prevent his transfer to the provincial facilities, citing concerns about his health and potential breaches of his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.The CSC has established a community standard for healthcare for inmates, which includes preparing a Health Status Summary for each inmate being transferred between federal and provincial facilities. In this case, the person concerned's ...</code> | <code>cluster: RULES:  The court rules that the person concerned's motion for an interim injunction must fail, as the conditions for granting an interlocutory injunction have not been met. Specifically, the court finds that there is no serious issue to be tried, as the person concerned's health condition is currently under control, and he is considered fit to travel to the provincial detention facility. Additionally, the court finds that the person concerned has not established that he will suffer irreparable harm if his transfer takes place as scheduled.</code>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
* Loss: [<code>MultipleNegativesRankingLoss</code>](https://sbert.net/docs/package_reference/sentence_transformer/losses.html#multiplenegativesrankingloss) with these parameters:
  ```json
  {
      "scale": 20.0,
      "similarity_fct": "cos_sim"
  }
  ```

### Evaluation Dataset

#### Unnamed Dataset


* Size: 2,250 evaluation samples
* Columns: <code>anchor</code>, <code>positive</code>, and <code>negative</code>
* Approximate statistics based on the first 1000 samples:
  |         | anchor                                                                                  | positive                                                                              | negative                                                                             |
  |:--------|:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | type    | string                                                                                  | string                                                                                | string                                                                               |
  | details | <ul><li>min: 370 tokens</li><li>mean: 2955.16 tokens</li><li>max: 6550 tokens</li></ul> | <ul><li>min: 32 tokens</li><li>mean: 213.29 tokens</li><li>max: 1042 tokens</li></ul> | <ul><li>min: 27 tokens</li><li>mean: 206.64 tokens</li><li>max: 973 tokens</li></ul> |
* Samples:
  | anchor                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | positive                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | negative                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
  |:------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  | <code>cluster: FACTS:  Murphy v. Canada (Attorney General)<br>Court (s) Database<br>Federal Court Decisions<br>Date<br>2016-11-02<br>Neutral citation<br>2016 FC 1208<br>File numbers<br>T-192-16<br>Decision Content<br>Date: 20161102<br>Docket: T-192-16<br>Citation: 2016 FC 1208<br>Ottawa, Ontario, November 2, 2016<br>PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brown<br>BETWEEN:<br>DAPHNE MURPHY<br>Applicant<br>and<br>THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA<br>Respondent<br>JUDGMENT AND REASONS<br>I. Nature of the Matter [1] This is an application for judicial review brought by Daphne Murphy [the Applicant] under s. 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7 of a decision made on October 8, 2015, by a member of the Social Security Tribunal – Appeal Division (SST-AD) [SST-AD Decision] denying the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal. The Applicant sought leave in order to appeal a decision of the Social Security Tribunal – General Division (SST-GD) made on August 28, 2015 [SST-GD Decision], which had dismissed the Applicant’s appeal from a decision denying her app...</code>          | <code>cluster: FACTS:  The person concerned, a 58-year-old woman from Gander, Newfoundland, applied for Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits. She had a significant speech impairment and was unable to work due to a stroke she suffered in 2011 and a knee injury she sustained in 2009. She had a limited education and work experience, with only a few short-term jobs between 1979 and 2011. Her application was initially denied in 2011 and again in 2012 after reconsideration. She appealed the decision to the Social Security Tribunal – General Division (SST-GD), which conducted a paper appeal and denied her application in 2015. The SST-GD found that she failed to prove that she had a severe and prolonged disability on or before December 31, 1997, the minimum qualifying period (MQP) for CPP disability benefits. The person concerned then sought leave to appeal to the Social Security Tribunal – Appeal Division (SST-AD), which denied her application in 2015. She subsequently applied for judicial...</code> | <code>cluster: CONCLUSION:  In conclusion, the court's decision in this case was based on the principle that the SST must interpret and apply the CPP Act in a liberal and generous manner. The court found that the SST-GD and SST-AD had failed to apply this principle in the person concerned's case, and that their decisions were therefore unreasonable. The court's decision was also based on the principle that the person concerned had a right to a more comprehensive disability review that considers her employability in the real world. The court's conclusion was that the SST-AD's decision was not reasonable and that the matter should be remitted to a differently constituted SST-AD for redetermination.</code>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
  | <code>cluster: CONCLUSION:  Altamirano v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)<br>Court (s) Database<br>Federal Court Decisions<br>Date<br>2023-07-19<br>Neutral citation<br>2023 FC 989<br>File numbers<br>IMM-4441-22<br>Decision Content<br>Date: 20230719<br>Docket: IMM-4441-22<br>Citation: 2023 FC 989<br>Ottawa, Ontario, July 19, 2023<br>PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ahmed<br>BETWEEN:<br>JOEL MARTINEZ ALTAMIRANO<br>EUSEBIA ROSALIA REYES LUNA<br>ABAD GILBERTO MORA REYES AZUCENA MORA REYES GAEL MARTINEZ MORA<br>Applicants<br>and<br>THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION<br>Respondent<br>JUDGMENT AND REASONS<br>I. Overview [1] The Applicants seek judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (“RAD”) dated April 26, 2022, confirming the determination of the Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”) that the Applicants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (“IRPA”).<br>[2] The RAD upheld the RPD’s refusal of the refugee claim on the bas...</code> | <code>cluster: CONCLUSION:  The court concluded that the RAD's decision is reasonable in light of the Applicants' circumstances and evidence. The application for judicial review is therefore dismissed.</code>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         | <code>cluster: SUMMARY:  **(1) Facts**<br><br>The Applicants, Joel Martinez Altamirano, his wife Azucena Mora Reyes, and their child Gael Martinez Mora, along with Azucena's mother Eusebia Rosalia Reyes Luna and brother Abad Gilberto Mora Reyes, are Mexican citizens who made claims for refugee protection in Canada. The Applicants claimed to be victims of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) in Mexico, alleging that they were extorted and threatened after failing to pay a ransom for the release of Eusebia's son Ulises, who was kidnapped by the cartel in 2019. The Applicants claimed that they feared persecution or harm in Mexico at the hands of the CJNG cartel if they returned.<br><br>The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that the Applicants were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The RPD determined that the Applicants had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Merida, Mexico, and that rel...</code> |
  | <code>cluster: CONCLUSION:  Osipova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)<br>Court (s) Database<br>Federal Court Decisions<br>Date<br>2024-07-05<br>Neutral citation<br>2024 FC 1055<br>File numbers<br>IMM-9267-23<br>Decision Content<br>Date: 20240705<br>Docket: IMM-9267-23<br>Citation: 2024 FC 1055<br>Ottawa, Ontario, July 5, 2024<br>PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Aylen<br>BETWEEN:<br>LIUDMILA OSIPOVA<br>Applicant<br>and<br>THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION<br>Respondent<br>JUDGMENT AND REASONS<br>[1] The Applicant, a 73-year old mother and grandmother of Russian citizenship, seeks judicial review of a reconsideration decision dated May 26, 2023, made by a Senior Immigration Officer [Officer] at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, refusing the Applicant’s application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds under subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].<br>[2] The Applicant asserts that the Officer’s decision was unreasonable on the basis...</code>       | <code>cluster: CONCLUSION:  The court allowed the application for judicial review, set aside the decision, and remitted the matter back to a different officer for redetermination. Prior to the redetermination, the person concerned would be given an opportunity to provide updated submissions and documentation in support of her application. The court found that the Officer's BIOC analysis was unreasonable, which rendered the decision as a whole unreasonable, and that the person concerned had raised sufficient grounds for judicial review.</code>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     | <code>cluster: ISSUES:  The sole issue before the court was whether the Officer's decision was reasonable. The person concerned argued that the Officer's decision was unreasonable due to several factors, including a failure to conduct a proper assessment of hardship, an error in assessing the best interests of the child, and a failure to give proper consideration to adverse country conditions in Russia.</code>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
* Loss: [<code>MultipleNegativesRankingLoss</code>](https://sbert.net/docs/package_reference/sentence_transformer/losses.html#multiplenegativesrankingloss) with these parameters:
  ```json
  {
      "scale": 20.0,
      "similarity_fct": "cos_sim"
  }
  ```

### Training Hyperparameters
#### Non-Default Hyperparameters

- `eval_strategy`: steps
- `per_device_train_batch_size`: 4
- `per_device_eval_batch_size`: 4
- `learning_rate`: 2e-05
- `num_train_epochs`: 1
- `warmup_ratio`: 0.1
- `fp16`: True
- `batch_sampler`: no_duplicates

#### All Hyperparameters
<details><summary>Click to expand</summary>

- `overwrite_output_dir`: False
- `do_predict`: False
- `eval_strategy`: steps
- `prediction_loss_only`: True
- `per_device_train_batch_size`: 4
- `per_device_eval_batch_size`: 4
- `per_gpu_train_batch_size`: None
- `per_gpu_eval_batch_size`: None
- `gradient_accumulation_steps`: 1
- `eval_accumulation_steps`: None
- `torch_empty_cache_steps`: None
- `learning_rate`: 2e-05
- `weight_decay`: 0.0
- `adam_beta1`: 0.9
- `adam_beta2`: 0.999
- `adam_epsilon`: 1e-08
- `max_grad_norm`: 1.0
- `num_train_epochs`: 1
- `max_steps`: -1
- `lr_scheduler_type`: linear
- `lr_scheduler_kwargs`: {}
- `warmup_ratio`: 0.1
- `warmup_steps`: 0
- `log_level`: passive
- `log_level_replica`: warning
- `log_on_each_node`: True
- `logging_nan_inf_filter`: True
- `save_safetensors`: True
- `save_on_each_node`: False
- `save_only_model`: False
- `restore_callback_states_from_checkpoint`: False
- `no_cuda`: False
- `use_cpu`: False
- `use_mps_device`: False
- `seed`: 42
- `data_seed`: None
- `jit_mode_eval`: False
- `use_ipex`: False
- `bf16`: False
- `fp16`: True
- `fp16_opt_level`: O1
- `half_precision_backend`: auto
- `bf16_full_eval`: False
- `fp16_full_eval`: False
- `tf32`: None
- `local_rank`: 0
- `ddp_backend`: None
- `tpu_num_cores`: None
- `tpu_metrics_debug`: False
- `debug`: []
- `dataloader_drop_last`: False
- `dataloader_num_workers`: 0
- `dataloader_prefetch_factor`: None
- `past_index`: -1
- `disable_tqdm`: False
- `remove_unused_columns`: True
- `label_names`: None
- `load_best_model_at_end`: False
- `ignore_data_skip`: False
- `fsdp`: []
- `fsdp_min_num_params`: 0
- `fsdp_config`: {'min_num_params': 0, 'xla': False, 'xla_fsdp_v2': False, 'xla_fsdp_grad_ckpt': False}
- `fsdp_transformer_layer_cls_to_wrap`: None
- `accelerator_config`: {'split_batches': False, 'dispatch_batches': None, 'even_batches': True, 'use_seedable_sampler': True, 'non_blocking': False, 'gradient_accumulation_kwargs': None}
- `deepspeed`: None
- `label_smoothing_factor`: 0.0
- `optim`: adamw_torch
- `optim_args`: None
- `adafactor`: False
- `group_by_length`: False
- `length_column_name`: length
- `ddp_find_unused_parameters`: None
- `ddp_bucket_cap_mb`: None
- `ddp_broadcast_buffers`: False
- `dataloader_pin_memory`: True
- `dataloader_persistent_workers`: False
- `skip_memory_metrics`: True
- `use_legacy_prediction_loop`: False
- `push_to_hub`: False
- `resume_from_checkpoint`: None
- `hub_model_id`: None
- `hub_strategy`: every_save
- `hub_private_repo`: False
- `hub_always_push`: False
- `gradient_checkpointing`: False
- `gradient_checkpointing_kwargs`: None
- `include_inputs_for_metrics`: False
- `include_for_metrics`: []
- `eval_do_concat_batches`: True
- `fp16_backend`: auto
- `push_to_hub_model_id`: None
- `push_to_hub_organization`: None
- `mp_parameters`: 
- `auto_find_batch_size`: False
- `full_determinism`: False
- `torchdynamo`: None
- `ray_scope`: last
- `ddp_timeout`: 1800
- `torch_compile`: False
- `torch_compile_backend`: None
- `torch_compile_mode`: None
- `dispatch_batches`: None
- `split_batches`: None
- `include_tokens_per_second`: False
- `include_num_input_tokens_seen`: False
- `neftune_noise_alpha`: None
- `optim_target_modules`: None
- `batch_eval_metrics`: False
- `eval_on_start`: False
- `use_liger_kernel`: False
- `eval_use_gather_object`: False
- `average_tokens_across_devices`: False
- `prompts`: None
- `batch_sampler`: no_duplicates
- `multi_dataset_batch_sampler`: proportional

</details>

### Training Logs
| Epoch  | Step | Training Loss | Validation Loss |
|:------:|:----:|:-------------:|:---------------:|
| 0.0314 | 100  | 0.7181        | 0.0840          |
| 0.0627 | 200  | 0.0542        | 0.0354          |
| 0.0941 | 300  | 0.0323        | 0.0264          |
| 0.1255 | 400  | 0.0238        | 0.0305          |
| 0.1568 | 500  | 0.0307        | 0.0166          |
| 0.1882 | 600  | 0.0266        | 0.0173          |
| 0.2196 | 700  | 0.0101        | 0.0130          |
| 0.2509 | 800  | 0.0159        | 0.0111          |
| 0.2823 | 900  | 0.0134        | 0.0113          |
| 0.3137 | 1000 | 0.0125        | 0.0133          |
| 0.3450 | 1100 | 0.0204        | 0.0111          |
| 0.3764 | 1200 | 0.017         | 0.0083          |
| 0.4078 | 1300 | 0.0172        | 0.0066          |
| 0.4391 | 1400 | 0.0133        | 0.0047          |
| 0.4705 | 1500 | 0.0141        | 0.0047          |
| 0.5019 | 1600 | 0.0089        | 0.0053          |
| 0.5332 | 1700 | 0.0068        | 0.0067          |
| 0.5646 | 1800 | 0.0145        | 0.0053          |
| 0.5960 | 1900 | 0.0096        | 0.0058          |
| 0.6274 | 2000 | 0.0024        | 0.0056          |
| 0.6587 | 2100 | 0.0084        | 0.0044          |
| 0.6901 | 2200 | 0.0028        | 0.0035          |
| 0.7215 | 2300 | 0.002         | 0.0034          |
| 0.7528 | 2400 | 0.0045        | 0.0040          |
| 0.7842 | 2500 | 0.0033        | 0.0044          |
| 0.8156 | 2600 | 0.0013        | 0.0037          |
| 0.8469 | 2700 | 0.0047        | 0.0034          |
| 0.8783 | 2800 | 0.0018        | 0.0030          |
| 0.9097 | 2900 | 0.0021        | 0.0030          |
| 0.9410 | 3000 | 0.0041        | 0.0028          |
| 0.9724 | 3100 | 0.0063        | 0.0026          |


### Framework Versions
- Python: 3.11.9
- Sentence Transformers: 3.3.0
- Transformers: 4.46.2
- PyTorch: 2.4.1+cu121
- Accelerate: 1.1.1
- Datasets: 3.1.0
- Tokenizers: 0.20.3

## Citation

### BibTeX

#### Sentence Transformers
```bibtex
@inproceedings{reimers-2019-sentence-bert,
    title = "Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks",
    author = "Reimers, Nils and Gurevych, Iryna",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing",
    month = "11",
    year = "2019",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.10084",
}
```

#### MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
```bibtex
@misc{henderson2017efficient,
    title={Efficient Natural Language Response Suggestion for Smart Reply},
    author={Matthew Henderson and Rami Al-Rfou and Brian Strope and Yun-hsuan Sung and Laszlo Lukacs and Ruiqi Guo and Sanjiv Kumar and Balint Miklos and Ray Kurzweil},
    year={2017},
    eprint={1705.00652},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    primaryClass={cs.CL}
}
```

<!--
## Glossary

*Clearly define terms in order to be accessible across audiences.*
-->

<!--
## Model Card Authors

*Lists the people who create the model card, providing recognition and accountability for the detailed work that goes into its construction.*
-->

<!--
## Model Card Contact

*Provides a way for people who have updates to the Model Card, suggestions, or questions, to contact the Model Card authors.*
-->