11,312 result(s)
-
3,276.
Siemens Canada Limited v. J.D. Irving Limited - 2012 FCA 225 - 2012-08-30
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[56] Article 11 of the Convention deals with the constitution of the limitation fund. [...] [76] As Irving argues, a fair reading of section 33 “compels the opposite conclusion” (Irving’s Memorandum, paragraph 73). [...] Thus, in my respectful view, the Amchem test is not the relevant test in dealing with a motion brought under subsection 33(1) of the MLA.
-
3,277.
Umubyeyi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2011 FC 69 - 2011-01-20
Federal Court Decisions[1] The present Reasons for Judgment and Judgment deal with questions arising from a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (the “Board”) refusing to grant status as a Convention Refugee or a person in need of protection to Laetitia Umubyeyi (the “Applicant”). [...] [2] The fairness of the Applicant’s hearing is at the heart of the present matter, as the Applicant alleges that several discrepancies in the interpreter’s work were found after the hearing, upon review by another person of the recording of the hearing. [...] [12] Considering the importance of procedural fairness and that the inadequacies of the interpretation resulted in negative credibility and factual findings in the IRB’s decision, a new hearing is warranted before the same Board member.
-
3,278.
Abboud v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2010 FC 876 - 2010-09-03
Federal Court Decisions[10] The only issue in the case at bar is whether, under the circumstances, the rejection of the application meets the requirements of procedural fairness. [...] Thus, if the officer breached the duty of procedural fairness owed to the applicant, the Court must intervene. [...] It is reasonable to expect that there will be mistakes by the respondent when dealing with thousands of immigration files.
-
3,279.
Madan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2003 FCT 59 - 2003-01-08
Federal Court DecisionsThe applicant has also alleged a breach of procedural fairness on the basis that a visa officer has a duty of fairness to provide an applicant with knowledge of her concerns and an opportunity to respond to them. [...] I find no fault with that reasoning and I conclude there was not a breach of procedural fairness. [...] regarding the assessment of experience, the assessment of personal suitability and the arguments pertaining thereto are immaterial and I need not deal with them.
-
3,280.
Delage v. Canada - 2002 FCA 212 - 2002-05-23
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions(c) a person with whom the person was not dealing at arm's length, the following rules apply: [...] (i) the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at the time it was transferred exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given for the property, and [...] They criticized the trial judge for failing to consider whether there was a difference between the fair market value of the property and the fair market value of the consideration.
-
3,281.
Abdul-Karim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2000-09-28
Federal Court Decisions3. Did the visa officer breach a duty of fairness owed to the applicant by failing to indicate her concern about his ability to successfully establish in Canada and by failing to provide the applicant with an opportunity to refute her opinion about his inability to successfully establish in Canada? [...] [4] I propose to first deal with Issue 3 which is: Did the visa officer breach a duty of fairness owed to the applicant by failing to indicate her concern about his ability to successfully establish in Canada and by failing to provide the applicant with an opportunity to refute her opinion about his inability to [...] [10] I am not satisfied that the applicant was informed of this concern, therefore I am of the opinion that a breach of procedural fairness has occurred.
-
3,282.
Ali v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1187 - 2018-11-27
Federal Court DecisionsThe issue here is whether the term as used in the Immigration Act is sufficiently certain to be workable, fair and constitutional. [...] [39] Being governed by the standard of reasonableness, the Court owes the decision maker a great deal of deference. [...] If so, does it violate procedural fairness to terminate the claim in absenstia and without notice?
-
3,283.
Gordon v. Canada - 2013 FC 597 - 2013-06-04
Federal Court DecisionsAlthough, to be fair, Gordon concedes that what appears to be a cause of action is really some factual background to support the cause of action. [...] Northey’s failure to provide such a letter constitutes a breach of CRA policy, as well as a breach of the principles of fairness and natural justice. [...] [101] In dealing with this issue, as with the others, the allegations in the Claim must be accepted as true.
-
3,284.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Green - 2005 FCA 37 - 2005-01-26
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[1] This is yet another case dealing with the failure to properly record on tape the hearing before a Board of Referees. [...] Evans J.A. held that the Umpire had erred in law "by failing to consider whether, despite the absence of the tape, the written record before him was sufficient to enable him to fairly determine the appeal.". [...] [3] The application will be allowed, the decision of the Umpire will be set aside and the matter will be remitted to the Chief Umpire or his delegate to determine whether, in the absence of the tape recording, the record of what is available is sufficient to enable an umpire to fairly decide the appeal.
-
3,285.
Cheburashkina v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 847 - 2014-09-10
Federal Court Decisions[21] The Applicants further assert that the failure to advise them which test was being applied to the adjudication of the matter, was a breach of procedural fairness. [...] [30] Dasent and Feng also stand for the proposition that one must consider whether the applicant had the opportunity to deal with the evidence, if procedural fairness is to be observed. [...] [32] The more significant question with regard to procedural fairness raised by the Applicants is whether by relying on the ICES reports and thereafter failing to give the Applicants the right to comment on the negative residency assessment arising from these reports, or provide a fair opportunity of correcting or
-
3,286.
Taticek v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2009 FC 366 - 2009-04-09
Federal Court Decisionsa) révoquer la nomination ou ne pas faire la nomination, selon le cas; [...] [22] Having set out the facts in some detail, it is also necessary to refer to the PSC’s policy document “Framework for Mandated Investigations Relating to Appointment Processes” (Framework), and in particular the part which deals with the Investigator’s role. [...] The investigator will ensure that the principles of procedural fairness are followed.
-
3,287.
Willis v. The Queen - 2003 TCC 575 - 2003-08-13
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsNo evidence of fair market value was adduced, and quite properly so. [...] [20] I shall deal first with the Crown's position that there was a change of use on September 2, 1986 and a conversion to inventory on that date. [...] [21] Paragraph 45(1)(a) creates a deemed disposition at fair market value where there is a change of use followed by an immediate reacquisition at fair market value.
-
3,288.
Zavery v. Canada (Human Resources Development) - 2004 FC 929 - 2004-06-25
Federal Court Decisions[8] Her recommendation was that the Commission not deal with the complaint. [...] Nor did the Commission err when it decided not to deal with the first eight allegations on the basis of timeliness. [...] Based on an interpretation of this provision, an argument may be made that, if the Commission, in this case, were to determine that it should deal with the EI allegation, it must then deal with the previous eight incidents.
-
3,289.
Naggayi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2020 FC 216 - 2020-02-07
Federal Court Decisions[5] The standard of review in regard to procedural fairness most closely aligns with the “correctness” standard, but in reality what a reviewing court must do is to determine whether the process was fair, having regard to all of the circumstances: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69, at [...] B. Did the RAD deny procedural fairness by raising a new issue without notice to the Applicant? [...] Thus, the RAD raised a new issue, and its failure to advise her of that and to provide an opportunity to address it amount to a denial of procedural fairness.
-
3,290.
Lac v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2014 FC 565 - 2014-06-12
Federal Court DecisionsIn challenging the conviction, the Applicant raises issues of procedural fairness. [...] Judicial review does not deal with the merits and a favourable result to an inmate would simply return the matter for redetermination to the tribunal appealed from. [...] [31] I will touch briefly upon the broad arguments raised by the Applicant about a breach of procedural fairness.
-
3,291.
Jaka Holdings Ltd. v. Canada (Revenue Agency) - 2011 FC 518 - 2011-05-04
Federal Court Decisions[29] For its part, the Respondent submits that since the fairness relief request was made on behalf of all three Applicants and the three Applicants relied on the same grounds, it is not surprising that the decisions dealing with the three Applicants would show some similarities. [...] It is equally well-established that not every breach of procedural fairness will give rise to a remedy. [...] In other words, I am not prepared to assume that the breach of procedural fairness resulting from the apparent copying of a prior decision carries no consequences for the Applicant Jaka.
-
3,292.
Jada Fishing Co. Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) - 2002 FCA 103 - 2002-03-22
Federal Court of Appeal Decisionse. Whether the Panel breached the requirements of procedural fairness. [...] Given the ultimate disposition of this appeal, I need not deal with the oral submissions of counsel for the Minister that my review should be on the lower standard of patent unreasonableness, based on the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision in Suresh v. Canada, [2002] S.C.J. No. 3, 2002 SCC 1. [...] e. Whether the Panel breached the requirements of procedural fairness
-
3,293.
Kaul v. The Queen - 2017 TCC 55 - 2017-06-02
Tax Court of Canada Judgments(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan; [...] [57] Such evidence is particularly helpful where the Court is forced to deal with matters that are “antiquated”. [...] (a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;
-
3,294.
Mintegui Ferreira v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 307 - 2022-03-04
Federal Court Decisions[13] I do not accept the Applicants’ position that somehow it can invoke in respect of s 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, the procedural fairness obligations in s 62(6) of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256, dealing with reopening an abandoned application where there was [...] [14] There is no invocation of procedural fairness in s 110(4) and the provision creates a strict threshold criterion for the admissibility of new evidence which does not allow for the exercise of discretion. [...] [18] In my view, a fair reading of the RAD decision shows that it conducted an independent analysis of state protection.
-
3,295.
O'Byrne v. The Queen - 2014 TCC 136 - 2014-08-01
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[6] Apparently, Ms. O’Byrne also made a so called Fairness application to CRA in 2012 in respect of her old tax debts. [...] CRA decided her Fairness application in 2013. She is not satisfied with CRA’s decision. [...] As explained to Ms. O’Byrne, this Court does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the enforcement or breach of a separation agreement or a court order issued by the court of a province in family law matters.
-
3,296.
Farkas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 542 - 2014-06-04
Federal Court Decisions[11] The issue is one of procedural fairness and is subject to the correctness standard of review. [...] However, having accepted the evidence, the RPD had to deal with that evidence properly which it did. [...] [17] Therefore, there is no breach of procedural fairness notwithstanding the efforts of the Applicants’ new counsel to persuade the Court otherwise.
-
3,297.
Wen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2013 FC 1159 - 2013-11-14
Federal Court DecisionsThe determination was based on a discrepancy in the Applicant’s evidence, and the primary issue in the present Application is whether the Officer was fair to the Applicant in dealing with the discrepancy. [...] While in many cases it may be argued that a misrepresentation has technically been made, reasonableness and fairness are to be applied in assessing these situations. [...] Since the opportunity was not provided to the Applicant, I find that the decision was rendered in breach of the duty of fairness.
-
3,298.
Ferdinands v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 1084 - 2007-10-19
Federal Court DecisionsThe applicants argue that they were denied a fair hearing because of the poor functioning of the videoconference equipment. [...] In the circumstances, I decline to deal with them. II. Analysis 1. Did faulty videoconference equipment result in an unfair hearing? [...] I can find no basis for concluding that the videoconference compromised their right to a fair hearing.
-
3,299.
New Era Cap Company Inc. v. Jane Doe - 2005-09-02
Federal Court DecisionsNAMES UNKNOWN, WHO DEAL IN UNAUTHORIZED OR COUNTERFEIT ROCAWEAR MERCHANDISE, AND THOSE PERSONS LISTED [...] Careful judicial scrutiny of execution of Anton Piller orders to balance the interests of both sides to ensure a fair disposition of the substantive issues in the case in a process that is fair to both sides. [...] When a lawyer is acting for a client, she is not, and she is not seen to be, independent, impartial, or even necessarily fair.
-
3,300.
Zalipyatskikh v. Canada (Solicitor General) - 2004 FC 681 - 2004-05-10
Federal Court Decisions[5] In his decision, the PRRA officer states he considered the Applicant's application in reference to both sections 96 and 97 of the Act. Section 96 deals with Convention refugees. [...] [11] The Applicant also argues that the PRRA Officer failed to accord him the duty of fairness described in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817. [...] I see no merit in this argument and there is nothing in the motion record to show that there was any breach of procedural fairness.