11,312 result(s)
-
2,826.
Warsame v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 630 - 2024-04-25
Federal Court Decisions[3] I find the RAD breached procedural fairness by raising a new issue without providing the Applicant an opportunity to respond. [...] [11] With respect to procedural fairness, “the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond”: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69, [2019] 1 FCR 121 at paragraph 56. [...] [13] In order to implement this principle, this Court relies on R v Mian, 2014 SCC 54, [2014] 2 SCR 689 [Mian], even though it deals with an appeal in the criminal context.
-
2,827.
Vasli v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 77 - 2023-01-19
Federal Court Decisions[24] The RAD referred to the relevant provision of the Act, dealing with “new evidence”, that is subsection 110(4). [...] [26] The RAD also reasonably found that the Applicants did not suffer a breach of procedural fairness arising from the competence of counsel. [...] [27] Overall, I am not persuaded that the RAD breached the duty of procedural fairness owed to the Applicants.
-
2,828.
Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 463 - 2015-04-15
Federal Court Decisions[2] Ms. Zhang attacks this decision on an issue of procedural fairness. [...] The question is whether the applicant had the opportunity of dealing with the evidence. [...] This is what the long-established authorities indicate the rules of procedural fairness require.
-
2,829.
McAuley v. Chalk River Technicians and Technologists Union - 2011 FCA 156 - 2011-05-09
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsProcedural Fairness before the Board [7] On the issue of procedural fairness, I conclude that the Board committed none of the errors alleged by the applicant. [...] The employer found that these actions contravened the “truthfulness and integrity” required in their business dealings (applicant’s record, volume 1, tab D at page 143; applicant’s affidavit, ibidem at pages 7-8, paragraph 8). [...] The Board addressed this issue in its reasons, called the situation “unfortunate”, but held that there was no breach of the duty of fair representation.
-
2,830.
Charkaoui, Re - 2003 FC 1419 - 2003-12-05
Federal Court DecisionsThis express power to deal with all matters related to the case simply did not exist in the former Act. [...] Moreover, in paragraph 78(c) of the IRPA, Parliament clearly specifies that the designated judge "shall deal with all matters." [...] (c) the judge shall deal with all matters as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness and natural justice permit;
-
2,831.
Whaling v. Canada - 2024 FC 712 - 2024-05-09
Federal Court Decisions(f) that offenders be provided with relevant information, reasons for decisions and access to the review of decisions in order to ensure a fair and understandable conditional release process. [...] The FCA therefore dismissed the appeal, preferring to remit the matter back to the administrative tribunal to deal with those issues. [...] (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
-
2,832.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Iqbal - 2002 FCT 301 - 2002-03-22
Federal Court Decisions[3] The applicant submits that the Board acted without regard to subparagraph 69.1(5)(a)(ii) of the Act as well as to the duty of fairness by preventing the Minister's representative to make written representations in the respondent's file. [...] . . . We are dealing here with the powers of an administrative tribunal in relation to its procedures. [...] [10] It is therefore my opinion that there was a breach of procedural fairness by the Board in this case and there was no opportunity offered to the Minister's representative to remedy the problem (see Ke v. Canada (M.C.I.), 100 F.T.R. 46).
-
2,833.
Canada (Attorney General) v. National Police Federation - 2022 FCA 80 - 2022-05-13
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsA. Was there a denial of procedural fairness? [35] I turn first to examine the alleged violation of procedural fairness arising from the determination that the impugned change to the RCMP’s promotion policy was not made until after the onset of the certification freeze. [...] Therefore, I find there to have been no denial of procedural fairness. [...] 32. Reasonable expectations language has appeared in a number of decisions dealing with the freeze section.
-
2,834.
Ridke v. Coulson Aircrane Ltd. - 2013 FC 1183 - 2013-11-25
Federal Court Decisionsb) il est interdit à l’employeur de faire ou laisser travailler un employé au-delà de cette durée. [...] The function of judicial review is therefore to ensure the legality, the reasonableness and the fairness of the administrative process and its outcomes. [...] The rationale is that the legislation was generally designed to be a fairly complete code and in some regards (duty of fair representation) it was to be a complete code.
-
2,835.
Bank of Nova Scotia v. Williams - 2020 FC 1127 - 2020-12-07
Federal Court DecisionsCommission to deal with complaint Irrecevabilité 41 (1) Subject to section 40, the Commission shall deal with any complaint filed with it unless in respect of that complaint it appears to the Commission that [...] In other words, a decision not to deal with a complaint is final, whereas a decision to deal with a complaint is interlocutory: Laurentian Bank at para 19. [...] [25] I also cannot accept the Bank’s contention that since Parliament enacted a screening process, it did not intend complaints that fall into the categories in subsection 41(1) to move forward, and that administrative principles of legality and fairness mean that decisions to deal with complaints should be subject to
-
2,836.
Englander v. Telus Communications Inc. - 2004 FCA 387 - 2004-11-17
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[50] We are dealing, here, with express statutory language where recourse is open to any "complainant" (ss. 14(1) of the Act). [...] This, it seems to me, is a fair compromise between one's right to privacy and the industry's needs. [...] He referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada which deal with aboriginal rights.
-
2,837.
Gandhi v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FCA 26 - 2017-02-07
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsHe also argues that the Commission breached procedural fairness in dealing with his complaint and that it violated his freedom of expression, which is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (the Charter). [...] Furthermore, the Judge considered the appellant’s allegation of a breach of the duty of procedural fairness. [...] The case law of this Court clearly states that the procedure put in place by the Commission on the admissibility of a complaint does not breach procedural fairness.
-
2,838.
Orr v. Boucher - 2011 FC 1035 - 2011-09-01
Federal Court DecisionsWith respect to the allegation Jim Boucher and Gerald Gladue have violated section 23.1.3 of the Election Code, I point out that section 23.1 of the Election Code deals with Fair Campaigning. [...] Furthermore, Part 1 is entitled “Election Procedure” but nonetheless deals with nomination procedure. [...] In particular, this would include alleged errors of the returning officer in dealing with nominations:
-
2,839.
Nik v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 522 - 2022-04-12
Federal Court DecisionsIn addition to the main issues, the Analysis deals with two preliminary issues at the outset, the first involving the Principal Applicant’s affidavit, and the second involving the RPD decision. [...] [9] Breaches of procedural fairness are subject to a “reviewing exercise ... [...] The focus of the reviewing court is whether the process was fair, bearing in mind the duty of procedural fairness is variable, flexible and context-specific: Vavilov, above at para 77; Chaudhry v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 520 at para 24.
-
2,840.
Smith v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2020 FC 1192 - 2020-12-29
Federal Court DecisionsIs the Applicant’s right to procedural fairness violated because her case was not heard? [...] B. Is the Applicant’s right to procedural fairness violated because her case was not heard? [...] [38] I find that the decision is reasonable, and that there was no breach of the Applicant’s procedural fairness.
-
2,841.
Bernataviciute v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2019 FC 953 - 2019-11-06
Federal Court Decisions(a) immediately, if the claimant is present at the proceeding and the Division considers that it is fair to do so; or [...] The provision reflects the fact that the RPD must deal with a large number of refugee claims. [...] [42] Much of the jurisprudence on abandonment findings deal with relatively sympathetic explanations for failing to proceed with a hearing: illness, family problems, counsel failing to attend, etc.
-
2,842.
Gayef v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2003 FC 1364 - 2003-11-19
Federal Court Decisions- tact: the capacity to be courteous, respectful, and polite in one's dealings with others; [...] Mr. Gayef did not know this role player, but asserts that her actions did not appropriately reflect those of a new employee dealing with a supervisor. [...] c) engage des personnes compétentes pour se faire aider dans l'accomplissement de ses fonctions;
-
2,843.
Zhu v. MCI - 2001 FCT 884 - 2001-08-13
Federal Court Decisions[30] The tribunal is alleged to have failed to deal meaningfully with the applicants' principal argument or evidence adduced to support it. [...] They were assuredly entitled to procedural fairness, but this Court is not convinced that it was denied. [...] Procedural Fairness [55] The applicants argue that the tribunal breached the principles of procedural fairness by failing to deal meaningfully with the applicants' principal argument or the evidence adduced to support it.
-
2,844.
Page v. Mulcair - 2013 FC 402 - 2013-04-22
Federal Court DecisionsTwo Supreme Court of Canada cases of fairly recent vintage are: Canada (Auditor General) v Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources), [1989] 2 SCR 49, [1989] SCJ No 80 (QL), which deals more with the statutory interpretation aspect of this case, and Canada (House of Commons) v Vaid, 2005 SCC 30, [2005] 1 SCR 667, [...] Furthermore, for the reasons stated above, this is not a case which deals with matters purely internal to Parliament. [...] b) à la demande de l’un ou l’autre des comités ci-après, de faire des recherches en ce qui touche les finances et l’économie du pays :
-
2,845.
Primrose v. Spence - 2003 FCT 464 - 2003-04-22
Federal Court Decisions(c) enforce fairness, impartiality and compliance with this Code on the part of all election officers; [...] [48] Section 20(5) is intended to deal with problems experienced during the course of an election. [...] [49] On the other hand, s.20(6) is intended to deal with problems experienced going into an election.
-
2,846.
Squamish Indian Band v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans) - 2017 FC 1182 - 2017-12-21
Federal Court Decisions[60] This follows because the duty to consult deals with unproven assertions of rights. [...] [98] In doing so, the RDG, and by extension, the Minister, is owed a great deal of deference in managing the competing issues in fisheries management. [...] D. Was there a breach of procedural fairness? [109] The Squamish Nation argues that the decision process breached its procedural fairness rights.
-
2,847.
Tempo Marble & Granite Ltd. v. Mecklenburg 1 (The) - 2002 FCT 1190 - 2002-11-14
Federal Court DecisionsBefore turning to a further consideration of this, I will deal with a preliminary jurisdictional question. [...] There it was argued that she, as trial judge, did not have jurisdiction to deal with a trial management motion in advance of a trial. [...] The Court of Appeal in Yacyshyn v. The Queen, [1999] 1 C.T.C. 139, takes it as given that the days of trial by ambush are gone and that "the sound rule of practice and procedure aims at ensuring both the fairness and the expeditiousness of the proceedings."
-
2,848.
Tigney Technology Inc. v. M.N.R. - 1998-02-19
Tax Court of Canada Judgmentspursuant to the UIA and EIA because the employer and the employees were not dealing with each other at arm’s length and under the circumstances it was not reasonable to conclude that they would have entered into a substantially similar contract of employment if they had been dealing with each other at arm's length. [...] Therefore, the Respondent's decision that the employment of Nancy, Mark, and Paul was "excepted employment" within the meaning of s. 3(2)(c) of the Act was reasonable and reached in a fair and proper manner. [...] [29] For UIA and EIA purposes, the question of whether persons are dealing with each other at arm's length is a question of fact which must be determined in accordance with section 251 of the Income Tax Act. It is clear that Tigney and the worker Appellants DeLong were not dealing with each other at arm’s length.
-
2,849.
Whitty v. Veterans Review and Appeal Board - 2019 FC 1125 - 2019-09-03
Federal Court Decisions[36] A question of procedural fairness is reviewable on the standard of correctness; see the decision in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339. [...] [38] The Board, in the most recent reconsideration request, was essentially dealing with the evidence on the record about the Applicant’s health condition while a member for the Canadian Armed Forces. [...] [39] I am not persuaded that the Board committed any breach of procedural fairness in the manner in which the reconsideration hearing was held.
-
2,850.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Davis - 2017 FC 159 - 2017-02-09
Federal Court Decisions[11] Ms. Davis used very strong profanity in her dealings with Officer Demers. [...] B. Were the remedies ordered by the Tribunal reasonable and procedurally fair? [...] B. Were the remedies ordered by the Tribunal reasonable and procedurally fair?