Advanced Search

Chopra v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2014 FCA 179 - 2014-07-17

24(1) The Commissioner may refuse to deal with a disclosure or to commence an investigation – and he or she may cease an investigation – if he or she is of the opinion that   [...]  In Chandler, the Supreme Court explained that administrative tribunals may reopen a decision for which there is no right to appeal in a number of cases, including where there is a failure to dispose of an issue which is fairly raised by the proceedings and the tribunal was empowered by its enabling statute to dispose of   [...]  They maintain that the PSIC and the Federal Court ought to have considered the quasi-constitutional status of the PSDPA. They suggest that Commissioner Dion erred in not explicitly dealing with their second and third allegations and that the Judge and Commissioner Ouimet erred in finding that these allegations were linked

Lapalme v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2012 FC 820 - 2012-06-27

In another declaration, the applicant’s common‑law partner confirmed that the applicant herself has recognized Marc‑André as a dependant child in her dealings with her former employer, National Defence, and continues to pay the premiums for Marc‑André’s medical and dental insurance from her pension cheque.   [...]  [16] We note that the question of whether the Board complied with the rules of procedural fairness is subject to the correctness standard.   [...]  I therefore cannot agree with the applicant’s submission that the appeal panel added a criterion foreign to the conditions set out in the Act by framing the question it had to deal with in this way.

Telus Communications Company v. Canada (Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission) - 2009 FCA 255 - 2009-08-31

The CRTC breached its duty of fairness in the proceedings by a) denying Telus standing to participate in the oral hearing,   [...]  [23] I will deal first with the objections of the CRTC and Bell Canada based on confidentiality, and then the objections based on relevance.   [...]  Broadly speaking, the appeal raises the issue as to whether it was open to the CRTC, as a matter of law, to adopt the portions of the practice bulletin that deal with final offer arbitration, and alternatively whether it was open to the CRTC to do so without public notice and consultation.

Boily v. Canada - 2008 FCA 393 - 2008-12-11

in hearing an appeal referred to in section 18, is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence in conducting a hearing for the purposes of that Act, and all appeal referred to in section 18 shall be dealt with by the Court as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit.   [...]  Accordingly, not only did the appellant not testify, but no representative of MRS Trust, Immeubles R.V. or Peak Investment Services Inc. (“Peak Investment”), the brokerage firm representing the appellant in dealings with MRS Trust, testified either.   [...]  This application clearly shows that the appellant appointed Jean-Marie Ouellet from Peak Investment to act as his mandatary in dealings with MRS Trust.

Grenier c. La Reine - 2007 TCC 93 - 2006-12-11

At paragraph 1 of his reasons, Hugessen J. of that court held that the judge "...was correct to view it as inappropriate for a trial judge to deal with an application under r.1733 in respect of his own judgment at a time that an appeal from that judgment was pending.   [...]  This decision was followed by two other decisions by our Court: Déziel v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2005 TCC 70, a decision by Dussault J.; and Schmidt v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2003 TCC 352, a decision by Little J. In these decisions, the judges ruled that it was irregular for the Court to "agree to deal with an application   [...]  These standards include the principle of procedural fairness to apply, and in general, the courts have recognized that, for a discretionary power to be applied fairly by the minister, the decision must have been made according to the rules of natural justice, in particular audi alteram partem (according to which each party

Sherman v. Canada (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) - 2005 FC 173 - 2005-02-03

(2) No collective agreement may deal with matters governed by the staffing program.   [...]  - give expression to the principles of procedural fairness (i.e. the right to be heard, etc);   [...]  [14] The statutory scheme regarding human resources in the CCRA is fairly straightforward.

Suntec Environmental Inc. v. Trojan Technologies Inc. - 2004 FCA 140 - 2004-04-05

Many issues have been raised in the course of argument but the issue which is dispositive of the appeal is the scope of Rule 216 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 (the Rules) dealing with summary judgment.   [...]  [13] A fair reading of the motions judge's reasons shows that he concluded that there were no genuine issues for trial because he was able to decide all of the issues on the basis of the affidavit evidence before him.   [...]  The same fair reading suggests that the motions judge proceeded as he did on the ground that he was required to take "a hard look" at the merits and to make the findings of fact and law which the evidence allowed him to make.

Modern Houseware Imports Inc. v. International Sources Ltd. - 2000-01-13

[2] Following the hearing of the motion I declined to strike out paragraphs 29 and 30 of the Defence, which deal with notice of the claim and with a unilateral ceasing and desisting by the Defendants, but reserved on the balance of the motion.   [...]  [20] The balance of the request for particulars deals with formula pleas made by the Defendants to the effect that the Defendants have no knowledge of various alleged facts, specifically deny the allegations and then put the Plaintiff to the strict proof.   [...]  The established concept is that a pleading must give fair notice of all the factual grounds of attack which, if not raised, would likely take the other side by surprise.

Brouillette v. Canada - 1999-06-29

(i) the fair market value of the share at that time exceeds the lesser of   [...]  Instead, they maintained that it was an innominate contract, in the nature of a contract to administer the property of another, combined with an indirect gift resulting from a sale of shares at a price less than their fair market value.   [...]  All that is required is that the husband should so deal with the property as to divest himself of it and vest it in his wife, that is to say, pass the property from himself to her.

Bhatti v. M.N.R. - 1998-04-22

They were not exactly the same, but they were very close to each other and the amount of time that each worked was fairly close, three weeks in the difference.   [...]  These are of some significance and the Court will deal with those in a moment.   [...]  The rest of it has fairly well been established. (h) Sahota was paid $400.00 per week by Bhatti Labourers to work on her own farm under the supervision of the Appellant, who had been hired as a supervisor;

Mowi Canada West Inc. v. Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coast Guard) - 2022 FC 588 - 2022-04-22

[107] Mr. Smeal gave a detailed description of the company’s fish farming operation which deals only with the production of Chinook salmon.   [...]  [146] The nature of the Decision will determine whether the Applicants are entitled to procedural fairness and if so, the extent and content of procedural fairness.   [...]  [216] Further, the Minister submits that the Memorandum includes a section dealing with “Consultation with Seven First Nations”.

Gillis v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2006 FC 568 - 2006-05-04

It is imperative that the members have faith in the system and believe that they will be given a fair opportunity to compete for positions, for which they are qualified.   [...]  [17] The duty of fairness and natural justice was appropriately met in this case.   [...]  "...perceptions by the general membership as to the fairness and efficiency of the promotion system."

Guzelian v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) - 2021 FC 460 - 2021-05-18

[6] The Respondent interviewed the Applicant in May 2015 and a fairness letter was issued in August 2015.   [...]  [11] On the merits of this application, the Court is called upon to determine the reasonableness of the September 11, 2019 decision and whether the Applicant was accorded procedural fairness.   [...]  [36] In her zeal to find grounds to exclude the Applicant, the officer lost a sense of proportion and balance in dealing with the evidence before her.