11,315 result(s)
-
4,826.
XI v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 174 - 2007-02-15
Federal Court Decisions2) Were the applicants denied procedural fairness? STANDARD OF REVIEW [...] 2) Were the applicants denied procedural fairness? [25] With regards to procedural fairness, the applicants first take issue with the practice of reverse order questioning, and argue that counsel should have been allowed to question them first, which would have avoided confusion and saved time. [...] [26] In recent years, there have been a number of challenges to the practice of reverse order questioning by the Board on the ground that it violates procedural fairness.
-
4,827.
Whitelaw v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 1115 - 2024-07-16
Federal Court Decisions[16] Dealing first with the issue of the Policy, I note that the Report for Decision describes at paragraph 64 in some detail that portion of the Policy the HRO found relevant for the purpose of assessing the RCMP’s explanation for having disclosed the RCC to the Crown. [...] Would [they] think it is more likely than not that the decision-maker whether consciously or unconsciously would not decide fairly? [...] [20] There is a rebuttable presumption that a tribunal member will act fairly and impartially.
-
4,828.
Mahoney v. Canada - 2023 FC 507 - 2023-04-11
Federal Court DecisionsThe Appeal Division reviews the decision-making process to confirm that it was fair and that the procedural safeguards were respected. [...] [32] The PBC’s and AD’s decisions were reasonable, statutorily compliant, and procedurally fair. [...] Both the PBC’s and the AD’s decisions were fair, reasonable, and justified.
-
4,829.
Pascual v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 878 - 2022-06-13
Federal Court DecisionsA decision-maker must do more than simply state that the interests of a child have been taken into account; those interests must be “well identified and defined” and examined “with a great deal of attention” in light of all the evidence (Kanthasamay at paragraph 39). [...] C. Was the Decision procedurally fair? [47] The Applicant argues that the Officer breached procedural fairness by failing to give the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the evidentiary deficiencies that the Officer identified in the H&C application. [...] [49] The Decision was procedurally fair. The Officer did not base their Decision on concerns about the credibility, accuracy, or genuineness of the documents that the Applicant submitted in support of her H&C application.
-
4,830.
Cieslak v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 579 - 2018-06-04
Federal Court DecisionsThe analytical framework is not so much one of correctness or reasonableness but, rather, one of fairness and fundamental justice. [...] D. Did the Officer breach procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons? [...] There was no breach of procedural fairness by the Officer in this case.
-
4,831.
Agnaou v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2015 FC 523 - 2015-04-22
Federal Court Decisions1) Did the Commission breach procedural fairness in the conduct of its investigation? [...] [28] In addition, the second issue deals with the interpretation of the PSEA and is at the heart of the Commission’s mandate and expertise. [...] a) révoquer la nomination ou ne pas faire la nomination, selon le cas;
-
4,832.
Hall v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2013 FC 933 - 2013-09-04
Federal Court Decisions[40] Mr. Hall seeks a declaration that the grievance process in his case was not fair or effective due to unjustified and undue delay. [...] [47] In determining whether Mr. Hall was treated fairly, as contemplated by section 90 of the CCRA, the Regulations and CD 081 provide helpful guidance. [...] 20. If the Institutional Head, the Regional Deputy Commissioner or the Director, Offender Redress, considers that more time is necessary to deal adequately with a complaint or grievance, the grievor must be informed, in writing, of the reasons for the delay and of the date by which the decision will be rendered.
-
4,833.
Mushimiyimana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2010 FC 1124 - 2010-11-10
Federal Court Decisions2. Did the officer deny the applicant procedural fairness by relying on extrinsic evidence? [...] The reasons are not sufficiently clear to permit the applicant to know why her claim failed and this, submits the applicant, was an additional breach of the duty of fairness. [...] [30] Because of my finding on the above issue, I need not deal with the other issues.
-
4,834.
Shah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 1131 - 2006-09-22
Federal Court DecisionsThe 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. [...] giving a fair opportunity to those who are parties in the controversy
-
4,835.
Watson v. Calgary Airport Authority - 2002 FCT 1288 - 2002-12-12
Federal Court DecisionsOn the established authority with respect to the duty of fairness in proceedings under the Act, I do not accept his argument. [...] The investigation conducted on behalf of the Commission must be fair, mindful of the interests of the parties involved, and thorough. [...] A poisoned work environment existed for Mr. Watson caused by his employer's failure to deal with the harassment of Mr. Watson because of Mr. Watson's disability"
-
4,836.
Knapp v. Canada (Attorney General) - 1997-11-13
Federal Court Decisionsto procedural fairness, the applicant argues that the Board's position, that it is entitled in the context of a detention hearing to rely on its own underlying body of knowledge with "little or no regard" for information bearing upon risk assessment advanced by the offender, is inconsistent with the duty to act fairly. [...] The introduction of adversarial elements such as the right to cross-examine is not mandatory.13 So long as the process is fair and the offender is allowed to make his position known, the requirements of procedural fairness will have been met. [...] It deals with the testing methodology used to evaluate the applicant and the scores which were attributed to him.
-
4,837.
Difederico v. Amazon.Com, Inc. - 2022 FC 1256 - 2022-09-06
Federal Court Decisions[39] As a full opportunity to provide further submissions both orally and in writing was provided to the parties, in my view, there has been procedural fairness. [...] I will deal with each of these arguments in turn. (a) Will Ms. Difederico be prevented from access to a remedy? [...] [89] As outlined in my reasons above dealing with the issue of unconscionability, the Arbitration Agreement does not present an insurmountable economic or procedural barrier to the plaintiffs.
-
4,838.
Austria v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FCA 191 - 2014-08-21
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsIn my view, this case does not assist the applicants because it does not deal with a legislative change that was expressed to have retrospective effect. [...] Rather, it deals with a remedy for an administrative error that caused prejudice to an applicant because of a change to the Regulations. [...] That case deals with changes to the Regulations that were made after an applicant submitted an application.
-
4,839.
Hue v. The King - 2023 TCC 162 - 2023-12-04
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsFairness as a touchstone in exercising discretion [12] Further, Justice D’Auray added useful observations on the issue of fairness in adjudicating upon tax litigation in Rhéaume v. The Queen, 2012 TCC 67: [...] Section 18.2 which he was applying appears in that part of the Act dealing with the informal procedure. [...] 7 The Applicant is asking the Court, by way of judicial review, to set aside the judgment on the ground that his right to a fair hearing was breached.
-
4,840.
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 500 v. Palm - 2015 FC 1228 - 2015-10-29
Federal Court Decisions[16] The Applicants point to and rely on the following statement of the Tribunal at paragraph 68 as indicating that, notwithstanding its clear statement that the motion was dismissed, the Tribunal failed to deal with it: [...] The Applicants do not cite any authority for the proposition that excessive procedural protections can amount to a violation of procedural fairness. [...] protracted trials, with unnecessary expense and delay, can prevent the fair and just resolution of disputes.” It may be possible that an onerous process could undermine procedural fairness in a case where the costs that it imposes on the parties are disproportionate to the fairness-enhancing protections that it provides.
-
4,841.
George v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 1240 - 2012-10-25
Federal Court Decisions3. Was procedural fairness violated by the two sisters’ applications coming to opposite results? [...] 3. Did the officer breach procedural fairness? Applicant’s Written Submissions [...] Therefore, the applicant’s procedural fairness rights were not violated.
-
4,842.
Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Air Canada - 2008 FC 1299 - 2008-11-21
Federal Court Decisions5. Did the appeals officer breach procedural fairness? Applicant’s Written Submissions [...] Decision-makers are bound by the requirements of procedural fairness as in CUPE above. [...] [30] Because of my finding on this issue, I need not deal with the remaining issues.
-
4,843.
Radji v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 836 - 2007-08-13
Federal Court Decisions3. Did the Officer breach the duty of procedural fairness owed to the applicant by unilaterally consulting and relying upon documentation found on the internet to which the applicants were not given a chance to respond to? [...] For this reason, I conclude that the Officer breached the duty of procedural fairness owed to the applicants by failing to disclose these documents to the applicants. [...] [26] The respondent submits that should the Court find that there was a breach of procedural fairness then the Court should not intervene because the result would have been the same.
-
4,844.
Bancarz v. Canada (Transport) - 2007 FC 451 - 2007-04-27
Federal Court Decisions· was there a breach of procedural fairness? · was there a reasonable apprehension of bias? [...] [30] This application can be determined on the grounds of procedural fairness and the right to be heard. [...] [38] The Respondent owed the Applicant a high degree of procedural fairness which it failed to accord.
-
4,845.
Putter v. M.N.R. - 2000-02-15
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsAlthough you were not dealing at arm's length with Equinox Industries Ltd., the Minister is satisfied that a substantially similar contract of employment would have been entered into if you had been dealing with each other at arm's length. [...] If it is a substantially similar contract of employment, Parliament has deemed it to be only fair that it should be included in the scheme. [...] [61] Subsection 93(3) of the EI Act deals with appeals to and the determination of questions by the Minister.
-
4,846.
Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 484 - 2012-04-25
Federal Court Decisions2. Did the officer deny the applicant procedural fairness? 3. Did the officer err in denying the applicant’s application? [...] As this is fundamentally a question of law, natural justice and procedural fairness, it attracts a standard of review of correctness. [...] [50] Because of my finding on Issue 2, I need not deal with the remaining issue.
-
4,847.
Nixon v. The King - 2024 TCC 4 - 2024-01-08
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsI will deal with each of these factors below. III. Analysis [5] Section 147 of the Rules gives the Court broad discretion in awarding costs. [...] [12] The Respondent has provided detailed submissions supporting the fact that preparing for and conducting this appeal involved a great deal of work. [...] [14] The Appellant’s testimony in Chief required a fairly extensive cross examination, with numerous documents being put to the Appellant.
-
4,848.
Cote Estate v. The King - 2023 TCC 66 - 2023-05-10
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIf the purpose of the paragraphs dealing with the alleged sham and the Applicant’s purported lack of donative intent were simply to paint the Applicant in a bad or immoral light, then it would be entirely appropriate to strike those paragraphs. [...] It argues that doing so will cost significant amounts of money and will delay the fair hearing of the appeal and involve significant judicial resources. [...] [38] Turning then to paragraphs 18.175 to 18.190, these paragraphs all deal with the purported sham.
-
4,849.
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. v. Fibrogen, Inc. - 2021 FC 171 - 2021-02-22
Federal Court DecisionsThe Plaintiffs had previously filed their expert reports on August 31, 2020 dealing with invalidity issues, including claim construction, obviousness, inutility/overbreadth, double patenting and insufficiency. [...] [5] The practice of presenting this type of evidence in this way appears to be fairly common and unobjectionable – at least where a cross-examination of the witness is not sought, and the authority for that can be found in Merck-Frosst - Schering Pharma GP v Canada (Minister of Health), 2009 FC 914 paras 19-20, [2009] FCJ [...] Dr. Haase’s reply deals with the issue of the use of cobalt chloride to treat anemia.
-
4,850.
Gottfriedson v. Canada - 2020 FC 399 - 2020-03-20
Federal Court Decisions[12] The British Columbia Supreme Court has developed a similar practice direction dealing with electronic evidence. [...] [14] In Bronson v Hewitt, 2007 BCSC 1705, 75 BCLR (4th) 124, the Court was dealing with the problem of a large, disorganized documentary production. [...] This question must be addressed with the principles of economy, fairness and proportionality in mind.