11,309 result(s)
-
26.
Agnaou v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2014 FC 86 - 2014-01-27
Federal Court Decisions2. Did the procedure followed by the Deputy Commissioner breach procedural fairness? [...] If it is not plain and obvious to the Commission that the complaint falls under one of the grounds for not dealing with it under section 41, the Commission should, with dispatch, proceed to deal with it. [...] Procedural fairness [27] The applicant alleges that the Deputy Commissioner of the Office of the PSIC breached procedural fairness in the following manner:
-
27.
Boshra v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2011 FC 1128 - 2011-10-05
Federal Court Decisionsa. Was there a breach of procedural fairness in the decisions? b. Were the Commission’s decisions not to deal with the Applicant’s complaints reasonable? [...] Issue #1: Was there a breach of procedural fairness in the decisions? [...] Thus, for the principles of procedural fairness to have been followed, the Section 40/41 Reports must have been completed in a procedurally fair manner.
-
28.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Lapierre - 2004 FC 612 - 2004-04-23
Federal Court Decisions[15] The question is whether the apparent lack of procedural fairness that the government alleges is sufficient to invalidate the Commission's decision that it has jurisdiction to deal with Ms. Lapierre's complaint. [...] Because a decision not to deal with the complaint will summarily end a matter before the complaint is investigated, the Commission should only decide not to deal with a complaint at this stage in plain and obvious cases. [...] If it is not plain and obvious to the Commission that the complaint falls under one of the grounds for not dealing with it under section 41, the Commission should, with dispatch, proceed to deal with it.
-
29.
Detorakis v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2010 FC 39 - 2010-01-13
Federal Court Decisions(i) receive, review, investigate and otherwise deal with complaints made in respect of reprisals. [...] (i) receive, review, investigate and otherwise deal with complaints made in respect of reprisals. [...] Procedural Fairness [92] The Applicant says that, in making its Decision, the PSIC breached the duty of procedural fairness owed to him in this situation because:
-
30.
Ozcevik v. Canada (Revenue Agency) - 2021 FC 13 - 2021-01-05
Federal Court DecisionsIn sum, the focus of the reviewing court is whether the process was fair and just. [...] [14] I am not persuaded that there has been a breach of procedural fairness. [...] Having concluded the Commission did not breach procedural fairness, in that its investigation of Mr. Ozcevik’s complaint was sufficiently thorough and neutral, I further find that its decision not to deal with the complaint was not unreasonable.
-
31.
Price v. Concord transportation Inc. - 2003 FC 946 - 2003-08-01
Federal Court Decisions[9] The Applicant then contacted her local member of Parliament for assistance in dealing with the Commission. [...] The Report recommended that the Commission not deal with the complaint. [...] [17] The Applicant now seeks an order to set aside the Commission's decision and to require it to deal with her complaint.
-
32.
Georgoulas v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2018 FC 652 - 2018-06-22
Federal Court DecisionsE. Application for Judicial Review of the Commission’s Section 40/41 Decision to Deal With the Complaint [...] It does not amount to a breach of procedural fairness. VIII. Did the Commission Breach Procedural Fairness by Demonstrating a Closed Mind? [...] [163] The Commission’s decision to first “deal with” (i.e. investigate) the complaint is reasonable.
-
33.
Tse v. Federal Express Canada Ltd. - 2005 FC 598 - 2005-05-02
Federal Court Decisions12. August 25, 2004: The Commission decides not to deal with the third complaint. [...] Federal Express claimed that Mr. Tse was getting a full and fair hearing in that forum. [...] (i) Did the Commission fail to afford procedural fairness to Mr. Tse?
-
34.
Tyler v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 257 - 2023-02-22
Federal Court DecisionsThe central question is whether the procedure was fair, having regard to all of the circumstances: Canadian Pacific Railway at para 54. [...] Furthermore, the Commission breached principles of procedural fairness because it did not communicate a deadline to provide the Investigator’s Report, or warn that a delay in providing it could result in a refusal to deal with her complaint. [...] In view of this finding, it is not necessary to address Ms. Tyler’s procedural fairness arguments.
-
35.
York University v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) - 2018 FCA 81 - 2018-04-20
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions(a) The scope of fair dealing for the purposes of education - a user’s right under the Copyright Act. In particular, whether copies of extracts of published works (e.g. a chapter from a book) made for students’ education are fair dealing, and therefore not infringing copies, or whether compensation must be paid to rights [...] Fair Dealing 2. The Trial Judge erred in concluding that reproductions falling within York’s Fair Dealing Guidelines do not constitute fair dealing pursuant to sections 29, 29.1 and/or 29.2 of the Copyright Act. Specifically, he misconstrued the second part of the test for fair dealing (i.e., whether the dealing was fair) [...] (a) failing to recognize that fair dealing is a user’s right of students enrolled at York; and
-
36.
Mulligan v. Canadian National Railway Company - 2015 FC 532 - 2015-04-24
Federal Court DecisionsGiven that the alternate decision-maker dealt with the human rights issues raised in this complaint, and that process was fair, the Commission must respect the finality of that decision and should not deal with this complaint. [...] Commission to deal with complaint Irrecevabilité 41. (1) Subject to section 40, the Commission shall deal with any complaint filed with it unless in respect of that complaint it appears to the Commission that [...] The Decision says the internal grievance process was fair but fails to consider the Applicant’s reply submissions.
-
37.
Canada v. Microbjo Properties Inc. - 2023 FCA 157 - 2023-07-05
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsIt is the existence of this tension that provides the assurance that the terms of the deal reflect ordinary commercial dealings. [...] The fair market value of the consideration given [91] The task of determining the fair market value of the consideration given by the respondents pursuant to paragraph 160(1)(e) is not controversial as the respondents have conceded that if they were not dealing at arm’s length with WTC, the fair market value of the shares [...] (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
-
38.
Huntley v. M.N.R. - 2010 TCC 625 - 2010-12-03
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIf on the whole of the evidence that is the type of dealing or transaction that has taken place then the Court can conclude that the dealing was at arm’s length. [...] In fact, both the Appellant and Payer operated at one time or another a business known as Western Fair which were described as food concessions at the annual London, Ontario fair. [...] The Appellant, in fact, initially named his business activity at the fair “Gateway”, which changed to Western Fair that he agreed he still operated even in 2008.
-
39.
Choudhry v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1085 - 2023-08-09
Federal Court DecisionsI am not convinced that the Commission committed any reviewable error in refusing to deal with Mr. Choudhry’s late CER Complaint or that it breached his right to a procedurally fair process. [...] [39] I will first deal with the contents of Mr. Choudhry’s affidavit. [...] Mr. Choudhry’s first argument on procedural fairness has no foundation.
-
40.
Gupta v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FCA 211 - 2017-10-24
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[4] For the reasons set out below, I conclude that there was no denial of procedural fairness. [...] (f) there is a valid reason for not dealing with the subject-matter of the disclosure or the investigation. [...] But it does not dictate the level of procedural fairness to be accorded to them.
-
41.
Kidd v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority - 2004 FC 703 - 2004-05-14
Federal Court Decisions1. Did the Commission violate s. 42(1) of the CHRA or breach the principles of procedural fairness in failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision? [...] of review analysis, since I am not undertaking to review the substance of the Commission's decision and the issue of adequacy of reasons falls within the parameters of the principles of procedural fairness, it is well-established that a decision pursuant to s. 41(1)(e) is subject to a great deal of curial deference. [...] In my view, whether such ground for refusal to deal with the complaint was open to the Commission does not arise in this judicial review proceeding, since the Commission did not state that s. 41(1)(d) of the CHRA was a ground on which it had decided not to deal with the complaint.
-
42.
Exeter v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2014 FCA 251 - 2014-11-03
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions(iii) Did the Board breach procedural fairness by failing to solicit reply submissions from the applicant? [...] [40] In our system, one cannot presume that a decision maker cannot deal fairly with such requests simply because it is alleged that he or she is biased or has a conflict of interest. [...] This caused her prejudice as she had already prepared to deal with this argument at the hearing.
-
43.
Donohue v. Canada (National Defence) - 2010 FC 404 - 2010-04-14
Federal Court Decisions1. Did the Commission offer the applicant a fair process? 2. Was the Commission’s decision not to deal with the applicant’s complaint reasonable? [...] [22] The respondent submits the decision was reasonable and the process was fair. [...] Did the Commission offer the applicant a fair process? I am satisfied that the applicant was given a fair and meaningful opportunity to take part and make submissions to the Commission.
-
44.
Iberville Developments Limited v. Canada - 2020 FCA 115 - 2020-07-03
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsThe exceptional concept of units of a partnership does not appear in either subdivision C dealing with capital gains and capital losses or in subdivision J dealing with partnerships. [...] The adjusted cost base of the partnership interest became the relevant computation whether dealing with new partners or existing ones. [...] [53] As well, the Tax Court judge correctly held that the Act tracks the partnership interest as a whole rather than as individual units in “subdivision C dealing with capital gains and capital losses or in subdivision J dealing with partnerships” (Reasons, para. 44).
-
45.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Windsor-Brown - 2016 FC 1201 - 2016-10-28
Federal Court DecisionsShe recommended, pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(d) of the CHRA, that the Commission not deal with Ms. Windsor-Brown’s complaint on the basis that the RCMP’s procedures had addressed all of Ms. Windsor-Brown’s human rights allegations in a manner that was procedurally fair and similar to the Commission’s process. [...] b) Did the Commission fail to provide adequate reasons, thereby violating the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice? [...] The Commission was also persuaded by her argument that the RCMP had a vested interest in dismissing her allegations, thus raising issues of fairness and independence.
-
46.
Yellowdirt v. Alexander First Nation Election Appeal Board - 2013 FC 26 - 2013-01-11
Federal Court DecisionsWould he think [...] more likely than not that Mr. Crowe, whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.” [...] Fair and honest elections preserve the democracy of the Alexander First Nation Band. [...] The tribunal set up to ensure democratic vitality must be open and fair in order to guarantee the sanctity of the electoral results.
-
47.
Maier Estate v. Bulger - 2024 FC 1267 - 2024-08-15
Federal Court DecisionsDoes the fair dealing defence apply? • e)Is copyright misuse a viable defence to the non-admitted infringing acts? [...] However, they assert that this reproduction was a fair dealing and is not infringing (issue 4b of the JSI). [...] [106] Fair dealing involves a two part assessment. The first part requires determination of whether the dealing falls within one of the allowable “fair dealing” purposes of the Act (i.e., research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism or review, or news reporting).
-
48.
Fettes v. The Queen - 2015 TCC 198 - 2015-08-06
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsThe fair market value of the shares at the time of these agreements was $10 per share. [...] (I) the fair market value of the security at the time the agreement was made [...] (B) at the time immediately after the agreement was made, the taxpayer was dealing at arm’s length with
-
49.
P.S. Knight Co. Ltd. v. Canadian Standards Association - 2018 FCA 222 - 2018-12-07
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsThus, the appellants meet the first step of the fair dealing test because the dealing was, at least partly, for an allowable purpose. [...] This factor therefore weighs heavily in favour of the dealing’s not being fair. [...] This factor also favours the conclusion that the dealing was not fair.
-
50.
Marsh v. Zaccardelli - 2006 FC 1466 - 2006-12-08
Federal Court Decisions[2] Ms. Marsh asserts that because of the unreasonable delay in dealing with her grievance the Adjudicator lost jurisdiction, or failed to observe a principle of natural justice or procedural fairness. [...] She characterizes the delay in dealing with her grievance to be unreasonable and argues that it resulted in a loss of jurisdiction, or breach of natural justice and procedural fairness. [...] [22] Dealing first with the applicable standard of review, the pragmatic and functional analysis does not apply to judicial review brought on the ground of breach of procedural fairness.