Advanced Search

Rodriguez Quiroa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 495 - 2007-05-07

As such, the Officer breached the duty to act fairly because she considered extrinsic evidence without giving the Applicants an opportunity to respond.   [...]  [32] When dealing with matters of procedural fairness, the overriding concern with respect to the disclosure of evidence is whether the document, opinion, or report is one of which the individual is aware or deemed to be aware.   [...]  [52] The Pramauntanyath case really turned on the question of procedural fairness, as the Court found that the reasons were simply not adequate.

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) - 2003 FC 1480 - 2003-12-17

(e) acted in bad faith by repeatedly refusing to acknowledge and correct his erroneous position in respect of the Apo-Oflox submission and by failing to deal with Apotex in a full and forthright manner.   [...]  Fairness to a party facing a trial has become a guiding principle in Canadian law.   [...]  The RCMP and the Crown having done so, however, I do not think disclosure of the advice in question could fairly be withheld.

2553-4330 Québec Inc. v. Duverger - 2018 FC 377 - 2018-04-09

[20] Before the Commission, the applicant raised two new grounds for not dealing with the complaint: (1) the complaint was filed outside the one‑year time limit and there is no reason to grant an extension of time (paragraph 41(1)(e)); and (2) the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the allegations of   [...]  (1) The Commission had full jurisdiction to deal with the consolidated complaint of discriminatory practices   [...]  [30] Conversely, the respondent contends that the reasonableness standard should be applied, as the jurisprudence has clearly established that the Commission’s decisions as to whether or not to deal with a complaint are reviewable according to that standard.

Zündel, Re - 2003 FC 1484 - 2003-12-17

[2] Mr. Zündel argues that I should have recused myself from the start, because having been responsible for CSIS I would not be able to be impartial in dealing with a matter where CSIS provides a great deal of evidence.   [...]  Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.   [...]  His response was that, frankly, he could not remember dealing with those issues.

Benguaich v. M.N.R. - 1998-08-20

... (c) subject to paragraph (d), employment where the employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm's length and, for the purposes of this paragraph,   [...]  (i) the question of whether persons are not dealing with each other at arm's length shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and   [...]  For this reason, I set out below the principles which may fairly be derived from the authorities in this court with respect to subparagraph 3(2)(c)(ii).

Brazeau v. Canada - 2012 FC 1300 - 2012-11-07

[6] As a result, I gave a Direction requesting that the Defendant in the present action provide an amended argument dealing with Justice Snider’s Reasons and the purported amendments to the Statement of Claim in this action.   [...]  I will deal with the motion, principally having regard to these documents; but I also have in mind the earlier documents provided in the record.   [...]  While in some circumstances, the Court has permitted an action to proceed notwithstanding the availability or pursuit of a grievance process, the more usual and more desirable procedure is that a proper grievance or grievances should be fairly pursued and determined before the Court is asked to address the situation.

Teva Neuroscience G.P.-S.E.N.C. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2008 FC 1091 - 2008-09-30

A confidentiality order should only be granted when there is sufficient evidence before the Court to satisfy the Court that it is necessary to prevent a serious risk to an important interest, including a commercial interest, and whether the salutary benefits of the order including the right of the litigants to a fair trial   [...]  It is certainly not to say that they could not get access to it, but it would be through a great deal of effort for them as opposed to if this became public information, they would easily have access to it and it would give them basically an insight into our broader global strategic pricing..”   [...]  That part of the motion dealing with this category of information (what was ordered to be confidential by the Board) is dismissed.

Scott Slipp Nissan Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2005 FC 1479 - 2005-11-01

The point of contention in that decision was the Minister's initial refusal to provide the Applicant with the Canada Revenue Agency's audit file for the purpose of dealing with the Applicant's Notice of Objection to Excise Tax assessment for the Harmonized Sales Tax ("HST").   [...]  [10] Dealing with this secondary issue, the Respondent submits that all of that information is in the public domain because it is contained in the materials filed in respect of Scott Slipp Nissan Limited v. Attorney General of Canada, supra.   [...]  The principles of fairness generally would require this procedure as these third parties may have rights or interests affected by the Minister's decision to disclose.

Moscato v. The Queen - 2003-03-19

It is not an easy case for us to deal with. We recognize that there was a long period of time when this matter could have been rectified.   [...]  We do not have a broad jurisdiction such as the Ontario Superior Courts and we are limited to dealing with a very simple question, has the taxpayer complied with the relevant provisions that will entitle her to the deduction that she is seeking, or the exemption that she is seeking.   [...]  And if that does not occur, I do not have the authority to say, notwithstanding that fact in this circumstance, it would only be fair and just to allow the appeals.

Club Monaco Inc. v. Woody World Discounts - 1999-10-28

DEAL IN COUNTERFEIT CLUB MONACO MERCHANDISE AND THOSE PERSONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE "A"   [...]  [6] The comments which follow are limited to the question of "rolling" Anton Piller orders in which the defendants are not known and which are issued against John Doe and Jane Doe. They are also limited to the case of itinerant sales or flea markets and do not deal with the particular problems which arise in the case of   [...]  However, fairness to those whose property is seized under the authority of an order of this Court requires that their interests also receive consideration, at least to the extent of demonstrating an objective need for the court"s intervention.

Almagamated Transit Union, Local Union 1624 v. Bugay - 1999-01-11

The provisions of a collective agreement dealing with seniority may be taken account of by the Board pursuant to subsection 45(4) of the Code only after it is presented with an application by a party to a collective agreement under subsection 45(3).   [...]  (4) On application being made to it pursuant to subsection (3), the Board shall take into account the extent to which and the fairness with which the provisions of the collective agreement, particularly those dealing with seniority, have been or could be applied to all the employees to whom the collective agreement is

Desmeules v. The Queen - 1998-01-14

. . . (g) The appellant was not dealing with Jean Crevier at arm's length when the terms of transfer of the immovable property were negotiated and when it was transferred.   [...]  (j) The fair market value of the said immovable property, with the building and improvements, on December 6, 1991 was not less than $103,000.   [...]  [15] Counsel for the appellant argued that the best evidence of the market value of immovable property is the price obtained for that property on the open market by people dealing with each other at arm's length and that the price obtained by the appellant was $86,000, and since there had been no change in the real estate

Communities and Coal Society v. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority - 2019 FCA 94 - 2019-04-18

The judge found that these decisions were made fairly and lawfully, and were untainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias.   [...]  This does not detract from the principle that each case turns on its own facts, especially when dealing with such a context-specific notion as a reasonable apprehension of bias.   [...]  Given the volume of the Port Authority’s decision making with respect to project permits, and the number of other port authorities or Crown corporations who allegedly make regulatory decisions against a backdrop of similar compensation schemes, it is a fair assumption that there will be ample opportunity for future judicial