Advanced Search

GlaxoSmithKline Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc. - 2011 FC 239 - 2011-03-01

I will discuss this point further when dealing with Lord Hoffman’s decision in Amgen infra.   [...]  The same can be said of the next paragraph; the compounds are of potential use in dealing with hyperlipidaemia, etc.   [...]  The former deals with safety and effectiveness. The latter looks at utility, but in the context of inventiveness.

Mottle v. The Queen - 2018 TCC 116 - 2018-06-20

(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

Airth v. Canada (National Revenue) - 2007 FC 1334 - 2007-12-18

... Ultimately it boils down to a consideration of simple fairness, common sense and the interest that the courts have that justice be done.   [...]  [4] The Court has approached the proposed amendments with these principles in mind; particularly fairness, common sense and that justice ought to be done.   [...]  This is not a case of a challenge to all tax dealings in respect of members of the Hell’s Angels.

Thangeswaralingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2002 FCT 652 - 2002-06-10

(i) si l'intéressé présente une demande d'autorisation relative à la présentation d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire aux termes de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale ou notifie par écrit à un agent d'immigration son intention de le faire, jusqu'au prononcé du jugement sur la demande d'autorisation ou la demande de contrôle   [...]  That is the very issue raised by the Application for Leave and Judicial Review filed on May 27, 2002, and I do not propose to resolve it in dealing with this stay application.   [...]  Parliament has seen fit, under s. 49(1)(c)(i), to provide for a statutory stay of removal for all applicants generally, until the disposition of any application for judicial review of a CRDD determination, presumably for reasons of fairness.

Cliff v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2022 FC 930 - 2022-06-21

Mr. Cliff was charged with a disciplinary offence for being in possession of, or dealing in, contraband, contrary to paragraph 40(i) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20 [CCRA].   [...]  This means reviewing a decision of an independent chairperson in light of two “primary objectives” - rendering “fast and efficient” disciplinary proceedings in order to ensure “order and discipline” in the correctional system; and acting fairly in conducting proceedings according to legislative and regulatory requirements:   [...]  ... ... (i) is in possession of, or deals in, contraband; i) est en possession d’un objet interdit ou en fait le trafic;

Hall v. The Queen - 2013 TCC 314 - 2013-09-24

The individual’s “total gifts” for a year are defined in s. 118.1(1) as generally a percentage of the individual’s “total charitable gifts” which are in turn defined in the same subsection as the total of all amounts each of which is the fair market value of a gift made by the individual in the year, or in any of the   [...]  Here, as the Respondent has pointed out, the scheme dealing with charitable tax credits has as its purpose to only provide tax credits, effectively subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer, to specific registered charities.   [...]  As the Respondent has pointed out in Vancouver Society of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women v MNR [1999] I SCR 10, the Supreme Court of Canada has already dealt with the scheme of the Act dealing with charitable donations and in par 2 stated:

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Hannoush - 2012 FC 945 - 2012-07-31

It is true that the breach of a duty of procedural fairness is an error in law.   [...]  [9] This deals with the Minister’s first point of appeal. His second point is that the citizenship judge failed to identify which of three acceptable residency tests she applied.   [...]  On the other hand, there was a great deal of material in the record which fell outside the four-year time frame in question, which was from March 2005 to March 2009.

Adewale v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 1190 - 2007-11-15

This would enable them evaluate our capability for future business deals.   [...]  The Applicant further argues that the Officer had failed to provide sufficient cogent reasons for the decision and breached the rules of procedural fairness by failing to communicate with the Applicant for further clarification on his circumstances.   [...]  [9] As a preliminary matter I will deal with the Respondent’s motion that evidence be struck from the record.

Sivalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2004 FC 199 - 2004-02-05

[5] On reviewing the new motion and affidavit evidence, and having due regard to judicial comity and the principles of res judicata and issue estoppel, I was concerned that the applicant may have been denied procedural due fairness in the treatment she was accorded at the Port of Entry.   [...]   (1996), 125 F.T.R. 50, aff'd [1999] 4 F.C. 140 (C.A.) and Daher v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 153 F.T.R. 131, dealing with subsection 44(1) of the former Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 which similarly barred commencement of a refugee claim where a "removal order" had been made.   [...]  I should note, however, that counsel for both parties have endeavoured to clarify how the German refugee protection procedure would deal with the applicant should she be returned to that country.

Robert Mondavi Winery v. Spagnol's Wine & Beer Making Supplies Ltd. - 2001 FCT 794 - 2001-07-13

[7] Dealing first with abuse of process argument, the Respondent has failed to establish that the Applicant is seeking to re-litigate a matter which has already been decided or that this proceeding has become "unnecessarily clogged with repetitious litigation".   [...]  [10] As for the second factor, procedural fairness is the primary concern, as explained by Justice Lemieux in Salton Appliances (1985) Corp. v. Salton Inc.:   [...]  [12] Dealing next with the third factor, the parties have yet to file their respective records in this proceeding.

Johnson-Paquette v. Canada - 2000-04-07

(1) labour relations legislation provides a code governing all aspects of labour relations which would be undermined by the availability of a concurrent forum to which the legislature has not assigned the task of dealing with such matters;   [...]  While the legislation does not expressly provide that the Board has exclusive jurisdiction, it indicates that Parliament envisioned a fairly autonomous and specialized Board whose decisions and orders were to be accorded deference by the ordinary courts, subject only to review within the confines of the privative clause.   [...]  [1] All four grievances arise from the same events and set of facts and although the two grievances dealing with harassment per se arguably come under section 91 of the PSSRA rather than the collective agreement (clause M-16.01) the two grievances alleging the employer's failure to take appropriate action clearly come under

Bayani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1998-09-24

It is apparent that paragraph 46.01 (1) (e) (ii), dealing with claimants for Convention refugee status, is very similar to paragraph 53 (1) (d), dealing with persons who have already been determined to be Convention refugees.   [...]  ... (e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations;

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 380 - 2023-03-20

In order to guide the parties in their submissions, the direction also drew their attention to the Court’s recent decisions dealing with the interpretation and application of the Notice.   [...]  [8] Virk is the first—and, to my knowledge, the only—decision that deals with the interpretation and effect of the Notice.   [...]  In his analysis, my colleague considers the analytical framework that should be adopted and the factors that the Court should take into account in dealing with a motion to revoke the unintentional discontinuance imposed by the Notice.