11,312 result(s)
-
3,826.
Danelia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 707 - 2014-07-16
Federal Court DecisionsB. Did the Board breach his duty of procedural fairness? II. Background [...] B. Did the Board Breach his Duty of Procedural Fairness? [35] The Applicant claims that the Board breached procedural fairness in not questioning the Applicant as to whether she could have prevented the abuse against her. [...] Accordingly, there was no breach of procedural fairness on this issue.
-
3,827.
Balasubramaniam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 228 - 2012-02-20
Federal Court Decisions(c) Did the Board member’s conduct result in the denial of a fair hearing to the Applicant? [...] C. Did the Board Member’s Conduct Result in the Denial of a Fair Hearing to the Applicant? [...] On its own, this does not amount to a denial of the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing.
-
3,828.
Thomasz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2010 FC 1159 - 2010-11-19
Federal Court Decisions[14] The purpose of a “fairness” letter is to inform an applicant of the case to be met. [...] I am satisfied that no breach of procedural fairness occurred in the present case. [...] [32] Since the cases dealing with this issue are at odds, the question posed is one of general importance, and would be dispositive of an appeal.
-
3,829.
Radji v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 835 - 2007-08-13
Federal Court Decisions[8] Did the Officer violate the applicant’s right to procedural fairness by unilaterally consulting and relying upon documentation found on the Internet which the applicants were not given a chance to respond to? [...] [9] An analysis for the appropriate standard of review is not required as the Court will not defer to a decision if it is determined that the administrative decision-maker failed to provide procedural fairness (C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 53). [...] [16] The applicants submit that Mancia did not specifically deal with the use of the internet and that the Court’s decisions in Fi and Zamora have altered the test as it is set out in Mancia such that the “novel and significant” and “evidence changes in the general country conditions that may affect the decision” portion of
-
3,830.
Canada v. Nunn - 2006 FCA 403 - 2006-12-08
Federal Court of Appeal Decisionsm) the fair market value (“FMV”) of the Appellant’s RRSP was $29,000.00 at the time of the acquisition of the shares in Jovalguy; [...] ... the fair market value of (c) the non-qualified investment at the time it was acquired by the trust, or [...] [16] The Judge made no determination as to the fair market value of this non-qualified investment at the time it was acquired by the trust.
-
3,831.
Wang v. Singh v. Canada (Minster of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2001 FCT 1405 - 2001-12-20
Federal Court DecisionsIn Mittal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1998) 2 Imm. L.R. (3d) 300 (F.C.T.D.), a case dealing with applications for student visas, Lutfy J. (as he then was) commented: [...] Breach of procedural fairness [24] The applicant's second argument is that the visa officer breached the duty of procedural fairness. [...] [29] In my opinion, there was no breach of procedural fairness by the officer.
-
3,832.
Maschio v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1997-11-14
Federal Court DecisionsThis led to what is called a "medical notification", dated October 30, 1995, being sent to the visa officer who was dealing with the applicant. [...] [7] The applicant himself also sent a response to the "fairness letter". [...] No fairness letter was sent out with respect to the second medical notification.
-
3,833.
Abbott v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2019 FC 1302 - 2019-10-16
Federal Court DecisionsThe issuance of a formal directive therefore represented a marked departure from the Parties’ earlier dealings with the Enrolment Committee. [...] [190] While the duty of procedural fairness is high in relation to the QMFN enrolment process (see Foster at paras 28-47; see Howse at paras 22-41), I conclude that the procedure in this case was fair having regard to all of the circumstances. [...] [197] Mr. Abbott was not denied procedural fairness. JUDGMENT IN T-573-18
-
3,834.
Bergeron v. Canada (Correctional Service) - 2022 FC 1567 - 2022-11-16
Federal Court Decisions(2) L’employé ne peut invoquer le présent article pour refuser d’utiliser ou de faire fonctionner une machine ou une chose, de travailler dans un lieu ou d’accomplir une tâche lorsque, selon le cas : [...] The decision under judicial review rather deals with the reasonable expectation that the threat would occur. [...] At best, it may deal with the quality of the statistical evidence, which is therefore incomplete.
-
3,835.
Jean-Baptiste v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 1362 - 2021-12-07
Federal Court DecisionsA. Did the RAD err by dealing with the issue of exclusion under section 98 of the IRPA before considering the refugee protection claim under sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA? [...] A. The RAD did not err in dealing with the issue of exclusion under section 98 before dealing with the refugee protection claim [...] ou des aveux, de la punir d’un acte qu’elle ou une tierce personne a commis ou est soupçonnée d’avoir commis, de l’intimider ou de faire pression sur elle ou d’intimider ou de faire pression sur une tierce personne, ou pour tout autre motif fondé sur une forme de discrimination quelle qu’elle soit, lorsqu’une telle
-
3,836.
Tudora v. The Queen - 2020 TCC 11 - 2020-01-27
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsWhile not relevant to this decision, it is clear that a great deal of blame should be applied. [...] Tax litigation is complex, dealing with the onus of proof is a foreign concept to most people without legal training. [...] ... 16.140 the fair market value of each individual license purportedly distributed was no greater than $0.30 in 2004 and $0.32 in 2005;
-
3,837.
Sport Maska Inc. v. Bauer Hockey Ltd. - 2019 FCA 204 - 2019-07-16
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsIn many cases, it will be more appropriate to deal with objections to a party’s right to transmit its interests in a proceeding at some other point, including at trial. [...] [47] There has therefore been no denial of the appellant’s procedural fairness rights or any reviewable error made in this case. [...] The respondent contends that it is common for lump sum costs awards to be made, particularly when this Court is dealing with sophisticated parties, like those to this appeal.
-
3,838.
Osmani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2019 FC 872 - 2019-06-27
Federal Court DecisionsHe resigned from the company in May 2015 because it was clear to him that the company was not honest in their dealings. [...] The task is to weigh the facts in a fair and impartial manner, considering both positive and negative elements. [...] It seems to me a TRP application is more carefully tailored to deal with an inadmissibility finding such as that made in the case at bar;
-
3,839.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Vorobyov - 2014 FCA 102 - 2014-04-17
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsIt maintains that based on the definition of “Minister” in the Monetary Penalties Act, the Minister of Public Safety was not authorized to deal with the review of the violation. [...] This is consistent with the purpose of the Monetary Penalties Act, which is to provide for a fair and effective monetary penalty system (intervener’s memorandum, paras. 30 to 32). [...] [45] The purpose of the Monetary Penalties Act is to establish a fair and efficient administrative monetary penalty system for the enforcement of the agri-food acts (section 3 of the Monetary Penalties Act).
-
3,840.
David v. The Queen - 2014 TCC 117 - 2014-04-15
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsAlthough there is evidence to support this argument, I do not think that it would be fair to decide the appeal on this basis because the argument was not mentioned in the Reply. [...] [67] In my view, it would not be fair to decide the appeals based on this argument. [...] [1] The respondent also referred to recent amendments to the Act dealing with partial gifts, but did not make detailed submissions with respect to the new legislation.
-
3,841.
Hitachi Maxco Ltd. v. Dolphin Logistics Company Ltd. - 2010 FC 853 - 2010-08-27
Federal Court DecisionsIn reality Canadian proceedings would almost automatically be stayed unless the plaintiff would be unlikely to get a fair trial for political, racial, religious or other reasons. [...] There is no suggestion that the plaintiffs would not get a fair trial in Hong Kong or in the United States . [...] 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.
-
3,842.
Novopharm v. Canada (Health) - 2010 FC 566 - 2010-05-26
Federal Court Decisions• [8] Novopharm argues that it is appropriate to issue a confidentiality order pursuant to Rule 151of the Federal Courts Rules in order to ensure that all of its dealings with the Minister related to the review of its ANDS will be maintained in the strictest confidence.Novopharm has succinctly set out its position as [...] [94] The parties refer to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 174 D.L.R. (4th) 193 at paragraphs 21 to 28 for the purposes of considering what the duty of fairness might require in any particular circumstances. [...] (b) the salutary effects of the confidentiality order, including the effects on the right of civil litigants to a fair trial, outweigh its deleterious effects, including the effects on the right to free expression, which in this context includes the public interest in open and accessible court proceedings.
-
3,843.
Stoney Band v. Canada - 2004 FC 122 - 2004-01-29
Federal Court DecisionsIn this case we are dealing with land, which has generally played a central role in aboriginal economies and cultures. ... [...] While it might be fair to say that the concept of the fiduciary relationship between the Crown and First Nations is now significantly better defined then it was in 1987, a brief search of authorities on the concept "honour of the Crown" might indicate that it indeed remains a "concept in search of a principle". [...] In what is labelled the "fiduciary duty" of the Crown, the Supreme Court restored the ancient concept of holding ministers to a standard of fair dealing that stands above and outside the black-letter law.
-
3,844.
Bonspille v. Mohawk Council of Kanesatake - 2002 FCT 677 - 2002-06-14
Federal Court Decisions(c) contains a clause dealing with dismissal of Commission members and a further clause providing the Council shall not dissolve the Commission or remove any member arbitrarily; [...] (5) In making the decision it did, did Council breach the principles of fairness when it acted unilaterally without consulting the applicants; [...] [37] In Frank v. Bottle [1993] F.C.J. No. 617, Justice MacKay was dealing with an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the removal of an elected Band Chief.
-
3,845.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ariyararthnam - 2002 FCT 48 - 2002-01-17
Federal Court Decisions[10] Subsection 103(6) of the Act, which deals with the review of the reasons for continued detention, provides in material part: [...] · Rule 7 deals with inquiries not detention review hearings. The effect of Rule 30 is that someone detained in say Toronto can not apply under Rule 7 to have their detention review conducted in Vancouver. [...] (iii) The Need for a Full and Fair Hearing [40] This application for judicial review was argued and then adjourned sine die for the purpose of affording to the parties the opportunity to agree upon a mechanism for providing a full and fair hearing where witnesses could be called at the detention facility.
-
3,846.
Singh v. The Queen - 1999-11-02
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIt involved constant dealings with various public authorities and applications, subdivisions, construction, the A.L.R., real estate agents and brokers, contractors and subcontractors. [...] ww) at the time the Appellant disposed of the condominium unit at 202-95 Eckhardt Avenue to Gurdial Chabal, it had a fair market value of not less than $83,000; [...] [18] Issue 8(b) was agreed to as to the following fair market values:
-
3,847.
Langille v. The Queen - 2009 TCC 139 - 2009-03-06
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsThe first deal involved an amount of $2,000 being advanced to Trev‑Cor. After this initial deal, these trades became more frequent. [...] Depending on the particulars of each deal, Alland would make its decision whether or not to participate. [...] ... a particular corporation that is a Canadian-controlled private corporation all or substantially all of the fair market value of the assets of which at that time is attributable to assets that are
-
3,848.
Palagot v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 214 - 2023-02-13
Federal Court DecisionsThe Applicant argued he was denied procedural fairness and asked that his claim be reopened. [...] The RPD also noted that IRB staff had contacted the Applicant, and so it rejected his argument that he had been denied procedural fairness. [...] [11] The parties raised a number of issues, but I do not find it necessary to deal with all of them.
-
3,849.
Jog v. Bank of Montreal - 2020 FCA 218 - 2020-12-16
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsWith respect to procedural fairness, it applied the standard of correctness and held that there was no evidence that Mr. Jog was denied procedural fairness. [...] It found that the Adjudicator applied the proper test to deal with the motion for recusal and reached the correct conclusion concerning Mr. Jog’s allegation of bias. [...] [16] Furthermore, it is important to consider that as a matter of procedural fairness, a complaint like any other claim should only be dismissed when a party’s failure to participate is clear.
-
3,850.
Isik v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2011 FC 718 - 2011-06-17
Federal Court Decisions[2] Although the applicant raised many issues with respect to this decision, the Court will only briefly discuss the question of procedural fairness, given that it is sufficient in the particular circumstances to justify setting aside the decision. [...] Obviously in Veres, the circumstances my learned colleague had to deal with were quite different, but the point made at paragraph 32 of his decision that “[t]he price of setting the agenda is to accept the responsibility for the items which are missed” is an important one that can apply to comments such as those made in [...] [16] Even if the RPD did rely on other issues in its reasons, the Court is not convinced that this breach of procedural fairness had no impact whatsoever on the ultimate decision.