11,312 result(s)
-
3,176.
Molnar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 98 - 2005-01-21
Federal Court DecisionsDid the Board breach the duty of fairness owed to the applicant in the circumstances? [...] I will deal with each argument in turn. [37] i) The Board's Chairperson failed to request that Member Chapley participate in the [...] The two Court of Appeal decisions dealing with section 63 make no distinction between decisions made within or without the eight week period.
-
3,177.
Sweet v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2003 FC 1438 - 2003-12-10
Federal Court Decisions[28] As I have determined that subsection 27(1) dealing with involuntary transfers does not properly apply to this case, the request for an injunction in this regard is denied. [...] Le délinquant doit être en mesure de faire connaître son point de vue sur la recommandation. [...] Il faut, de nouveau, donner au délinquant l'occasion de faire connaître son point de vue par écrit ou en personne.
-
3,178.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Lussier - 2017 FC 528 - 2017-05-29
Federal Court DecisionsThroughout the process, the independent reviewer gives expression to the principles of procedural fairness, including the right to be heard, to question the opposing party’s arguments and to access documents introduced by the opposing party (section 3F, paragraph 16 of the Directive). [...] This paragraph deals specifically with the corrective measures the independent reviewer can apply. [...] [48] Moreover, it is logical to expect that a regime that seeks to address situations involving demotions, for reasons other than lack of discipline or misconduct, deals with situations where it is alleged that the employer has breached its duty to accommodate.
-
3,179.
Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. v. The Queen - 2013 TCC 275 - 2013-09-05
Tax Court of Canada Judgments2. The Tariff was also never intended to be so paltry as to be insignificant and play a trivial role for litigants in dealing with their litigation. [...] [26] On balance, I am prepared to give some weight to this factor, but like the volume of work, not a great deal. [...] [31] In summary on this factor, the Respondent might have been more forthcoming and perhaps conciliatory on how it would deal with the fair market value issue, but that was a strategy clearly taken by the Respondent, a strategy that ultimately worked against it in my judgment.
-
3,180.
Sputek v. The Queen - 2010 TCC 540 - 2010-10-22
Tax Court of Canada Judgments(b) to answer questions relating to his dealings with charitable organizations subsequent to 2000 (the “Post-2000 Questions”) identified as questions 30, 143 to 145, 194, 226 to 228 and 230 to 232 in Exhibit A that accompanied the affidavit filed with the motion; and [...] [6] Section 81 of the Tax Court of Canada Rules (General Procedure) (the “Rules”) deals with discovery of documents and states the following: [...] The broad relevance test applicable to the production of documents is that a party entitled to discovery of a document or record if it directly or indirectly enables it to advance its own case or to destroy that of an adversary, or may fairly lead to a train of inquiry which may have either of these consequences.[2]
-
3,181.
Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. v. Mazda Canada Inc. - 2008 FCA 219 - 2008-06-19
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[15] The Trial Judge set out to consider these ten factors, expressing the view that six of them were “fairly neutral”, that is a), b), c), e), f) and j). [...] This factor of residence of witnesses, therefore, weighs very heavily in favour of Japan, but the Trial Judge found it to be a “fairly neutral” one, erroneously giving it insufficient weight, in my view. [...] This would be preferable to dealing with these matters by affidavits translated into English, by Judges totally unaware of the actual Japanese jurisprudence and its legal system.
-
3,182.
Benaissa v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2005 FC 1220 - 2005-09-07
Federal Court Decisions[19] I will deal with the Crown's two arguments in turn. Lack of material facts [...] [31] Although it is not necessary for me to deal with the arguments of the Crown based on the failure to plead a duty of care in light of the above conclusions, for the sake of completeness, I would make the following observations. [...] [29] Lord Moulton may in the context of that case have been contemplating immunity from suit for negligence but the sentiment supports the concept of it not being fair or reasonable to impose liability for negligence in the case of an immigration officer performing his public duty.
-
3,183.
Bauer Nike Hockey Inc. v. Easton Sports Canada Inc. - 2005 FC 1014 - 2005-07-21
Federal Court Decisions[12] I shall deal with the motions at bar in the order in which they were introduced in paragraphs 2 and 3 above. [...] One must look at what is reasonable and fair under the circumstances: Smith, Kline & French Ltd. v. A.-G. Can., per Addy J. at p. 109. [...] [49] Question R-38 shall be answered because although the '953 patent is not restricted to any particular material, it deals nevertheless with the use of quarter material and Easton's attempt is to establish at the end of the day that no distinction can be drawn between the prior art quarter material and the later quarter
-
3,184.
Janda Products Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) - 2004 FC 1516 - 2004-10-27
Federal Court DecisionsThe remission order and the pertinent provisions of the FAA deal with a remission rather than a rebate. [...] However, legislative decision making is not subject to any known duty of fairness: Wells v. Newfoundland, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 199. [...] Section 36 of the Federal Courts Act deals with prejudgment interest in respect of claims other than those against the Crown.
-
3,185.
Pfeiffer v. Canada (Superintendent of Bankruptcy) - 2004 FCA 192 - 2004-05-21
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions(a) direct a person to deal with property of the estate described in the direction in such manner as may be indicated in the direction, including the continuation of the administration of the estate; [...] c) donner instruction à une banque ou autre dépositaire de ne faire aucun paiement sur les fonds détenus au crédit de cet actif, si ce n'est conformément à l'instruction; [...] judicial review dated July 10, 2002, two separate notices of application for judicial review, one dealing with the respondents' decision dated July 4, 2004, the investigation decision, and a second dealing with the respondents' conservatory measures dated July 5, 2004.
-
3,186.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Fabrikant - 2019 FCA 174 - 2019-06-10
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[5] Dr. Fabrikant says my recusal is justified because of certain small administrative errors I have made when dealing with his various matters. [...] He assigned me to deal with these motions. I must accept this assignment, absent any disqualifying bias. [...] Dr. Fabrikant has a propensity to try to take control of legal proceedings by filing multiple motions that are filled with invective, creating confusion and attempting to manipulate and intimidate fair-minded decision-makers.
-
3,187.
Carten v. Canada - 2009 FCA 286 - 2009-10-06
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsHowever, the appellants argue that a prothonotary should not have been designated case management judge in this case because the allegations underlying the applicants’ action are so serious and politically sensitive that the government will be motivated to act improperly in ensuring that the allegations are not fairly [...] [5] Having carefully reviewed the record and the submission of the appellants, we do not accept that only a judge has sufficient security of tenure to deal impartially with the case management of the appellants’ action. [...] has delayed dealing with a number of important motions, including a motion by the appellants for summary judgment against the respondent Themis Program Management and Consulting Ltd. In our view, it was reasonable for the prothonotary to defer dealing with these motions until after the disposition of this appeal.
-
3,188.
Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 756 - 2021-08-17
Federal Court DecisionsThe standard remedy for a breach of procedural fairness is to remit the matter back for redetermination. [...] [8] The Officer sent two procedural fairness letters to the Applicant. [...] This Court did not deal with the issue of procedural fairness, as the Respondent conceded this point.
-
3,189.
Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2020 FC 612 - 2020-05-12
Federal Court Decisions[23] A finding by the RPD, about protected status, is not binding upon the Respondent when dealing with an application for permanent residence; see the decision in Ratnasingam v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2007 FC 1096. [...] [33] Procedural fairness requires that a party receive the opportunity to present his or her case. [...] [34] In my opinion, the Applicant has failed to show any breach of his right to procedural fairness.
-
3,190.
Ziade v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2007 FC 1352 - 2007-12-20
Federal Court DecisionsThe values underlying the duty of procedural fairness relate to the principle that the individual or individuals affected should have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly, and have decisions affecting their rights, interests, or privileges made using a fair, impartial, and open process, appropriate to the [...] [27] I set out the circumstances that lead me to conclude that the panel breached the duty of fairness in this case: [...] [30] Under these circumstances, it is not necessary to deal with the other issues.
-
3,191.
Deigan v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2000-06-13
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[3] The Motions Judge allowed the application but only to the extent that the matter be remitted to the same adjudicator to deal with one aspect of her decision which the Motions Judge held constituted a denial to a fair hearing. [...] This fact effectively disposes of the appellant"s arguments dealing with the truth or falsity of the statements contained in letters that he admittedly wrote.
-
3,192.
Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. - 2003 FCA 297 - 2003-07-14
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsHe stated in para. 122 of his judgment, "we are not here dealing with a trade-mark as defined in the Act". [...] (c) faire passer d'autres marchandises ou services pour ceux qui sont commandés ou demandés [...] Consequently, it is fair to say that he raised the doctrine of functionality in relation to an unregistered trade-mark, but it is not fair to say that he found it dispositive of the issue.
-
3,193.
Rahman v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2022 FC 806 - 2022-06-02
Federal Court DecisionsB. Procedural Fairness [33] Questions of procedural fairness are reviewed on the correctness standard: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, per Binnie J at para 43. [...] [55] In this respect, the Applicant could have complied with the normal rules for Canadian taxpayers (subject to her medical claims which I will deal with shortly) but did not. [...] [75] This Court in Waycobah FC, supra, discussed procedural fairness in the context of remission applications under the FAA, and noted the duty of fairness is at the lower end of the scale:
-
3,194.
Goodman v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2019 FC 1569 - 2019-12-09
Federal Court Decisions[11] Finally, Mr. Goodman challenges the fairness and reasonableness of the PRRA Decision. [...] There the Court was dealing with differential access to a right of appeal before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD). [...] [49] The ID also took some guidance from the decision of Justice Cecily Strickland in Nassereddine v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 85, [2015] 2 FCR 63, dealing with persons who provide only humanitarian or non-violent assistance in support of a terrorist cause.
-
3,195.
Ritchie v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2020 FC 342 - 2020-03-09
Federal Court DecisionsB. Was the DG’s decision procedurally fair? [17] Ms. Ritchie says she was owed a heightened duty of procedural fairness, given her 17-year unblemished employment history. [...] The DG’s decision was procedurally fair. C. Was the DG’s decision reasonable? [...] [21] The Minister or his delegate has “a great deal of discretion” to grant or refuse to grant, or suspend or cancel security clearances (Henri at para 24; Act, s 4.8).
-
3,196.
Ahmed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 1203 - 2006-10-12
Federal Court Decisionsc) a indiqué par écrit à l’agent qu’il a l’intention de faire ou a fait un placement. [...] 1. Breach of duty of fairness and principles of natural justice Standard of Review [...] The Visa Officer is under no obligation to apprise the applicant of concerns unless these concerns deal with extrinsic evidence.
-
3,197.
Hossain v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 892 - 2006-07-27
Federal Court Decisions¶ 140 Procedural fairness in the refugee determination process requires at a minimum the right to a fair hearing: see Singh, above. [...] While I in no way presume to predict what the Court of Appeal will decide, justice requires that I deal with Mr. Hossain's case now. [...] The first is that fairness cannot be sacrificed in the interests of efficiency.
-
3,198.
Lockie v. The Queen - 2010 TCC 142 - 2010-03-18
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsDonation receipt based on the Fair Market Value (FMV) 25,000 50,000 [...] 25 It is unnecessary for me to deal at any greater length with the donor. [...] Fair Market Value as determined for the products donated by the Appellant:
-
3,199.
Guan v. Purolator Courier Ltd. - 2010 FCA 103 - 2010-04-15
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsMr. Guan alleges that he was denied natural justice or procedural fairness by the CIRB. [...] [9] Section 37 imposes a duty of fair representation to the bargaining agent union or its representative. [...] The applicant was undeniably entitled to the Union’s good faith in dealing with his grievances, but not to an absolute right to arbitration (Williams, at paragraph 10 citing Guild v. Guy Gagnon et al., [1984] 1 S.C.R. 509 at 527).
-
3,200.
Pacheco Silva v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 733 - 2007-07-10
Federal Court DecisionsHere the first question before the Court deals with the exercise of the Officer’s discretion in considering a “substituted evaluation” under subsection 76(3) of the Regulations. [...] [8] The second question involves procedural fairness. It is well accepted that questions of procedural fairness require no assessment of the standard of review. [...] B. Did the Immigration Officer breach the requirements of procedural fairness?