Skip to main content
Federal Court of Appeal· 2001

Halvorsen v. Canada (Attorney General)

2001 FCA 214
GeneralJD
Cite or share
Share via WhatsAppEmail
Showing the official court-reporter headnote. An editorial brief (facts · issues · held · ratio · significance) is on the roadmap for this case. The judgment text below is the authoritative source.

Court headnote

Halvorsen v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-06-25 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 214 File numbers A-690-00 Decision Content Date: 20010625 Docket: A-690-00 Citation: 2001 FCA 214 Vancouver, British Columbia, Monday, the 25th day of June, 2001 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN, J.A. SEXTON, J.A. EVANS, J.A. BETWEEN: KAARE HALVORSEN Applicant - and - THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered orally from the Bench on Monday, June 25, 2001) EVANS, J.A. [1] We are not satisfied that the Board based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material before it, or that it committed any error of law in its formulation or application of the relevant statutory provision. [2] The application for judical review will be dismissed. In his memorandum counsel for the respondent explicitly did not seek costs, and none will be awarded. (Sgd.) "John Maxwell Evans" J.A. Vancouver, British Columbia June 25, 2001 …

Read full judgment
Halvorsen v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2001-06-25
Neutral citation
2001 FCA 214
File numbers
A-690-00
Decision Content
Date: 20010625
Docket: A-690-00
Citation: 2001 FCA 214
Vancouver, British Columbia, Monday, the 25th day of June, 2001
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN, J.A.
SEXTON, J.A.
EVANS, J.A.
BETWEEN:
KAARE HALVORSEN
Applicant
- and -
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered orally from the Bench on Monday, June 25, 2001)
EVANS, J.A.
[1] We are not satisfied that the Board based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard to the material before it, or that it committed any error of law in its formulation or application of the relevant statutory provision.
[2] The application for judical review will be dismissed. In his memorandum counsel for the respondent explicitly did not seek costs, and none will be awarded.
(Sgd.) "John Maxwell Evans"
J.A.
Vancouver, British Columbia
June 25, 2001

Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca

Related cases