Advanced Search

Moses v. Canada - 2003 FC 1417 - 2003-12-03

Dealing with the first point, the existence of an adversarial context, I have already observed that the substance of the registration which Ms Moses presently has would not change regardless of the outcome of the application.   [...]  All of this is in contrast with the present situation in which a final decision, dealing with the rights of Ms Moses, has been made pursuant to section 14.2.   [...]  Nor should the principle be applied slavishly where tribunal fails to dispose of issue, fairly raised n the proceeding and within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, for then the tribunal ought to be allowed to complete its statutory task: see page 862.

Echo Bay Mines Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) - 2003 FCA 270 - 2003-06-23

Once again the form is silent on arithmetical operations to be undertaken, but it is fair implication that this line is to allow for the amount of depreciation which will result in those assets being fully depreciated in that year.   [...]  It contains provisions dealing with the entire range of issues which arise in the course of exploiting a mine, one of which deals with the payment of royalties with respect to the output of the mine.   [...]  The material parts of the Regulation dealing with the form are as follows:

Ruby Trading S.A. v. Parsons - 2000-11-21

Therefore, the Court declined, at the oral hearing, to deal with the following matters raised by the Appellants:   [...]  3. Whether the Appellants were denied natural justice and a fair hearing on the motion before Lutfy A.C.J.; and   [...]  [11] Upon being so informed, all of the parties requested that this Court consider whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to deal with the various claims contained in the Statement of Claim.

Canada (Attorney General) v. United States Steel Corporation - 2010 FC 642 - 2010-06-14

Accordingly, it can be seen that in implementing the ICA Parliament intended a civil enforcement mechanism and civil penalties to deal with non-compliance.   [...]  Further, the decision does not deal with the question as to what constitutes a true penal consequence.   [...]  [79] Accordingly, it can be seen that a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice in the context of section 2(e) of the Bill of Rights is synonymous with the concept of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Kruco Inc. v. The Queen - 2001-07-17

(j) For the purposes of section 55 of the Income Tax Act, Hicliff Corporation (1978) Ltd. and Kruger Inc. were, at all material times, dealing with the appellant at arm's length;   [...]  I emphasize that we are not dealing here with a case in which tax was not collected through mere inadvertence on the Department's part.   [...]  The institution of Commissioners equipped with broad powers and an extensive discretion to deal with particular cases does not exist here.

Pinzon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 945 - 2023-07-12

The issue of procedural fairness is essentially subject to the correctness standard.   [...]  The Court must ask, with a “sharp focus on the nature of the substantive rights involved and the consequences for an individual,” whether a fair and just process was followed (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54).   [...]  [19] The applicants’ case evokes a great deal of sympathy. They have been trying to visit their children and grandchildren for at least seven years.

Djikounou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 584 - 2022-04-21

Nor was any fairness letter sent to outline any concerns that the officer might have and to invite a response from the Applicants.   [...]  [24] In the present matter, I am not prepared to find that the conduct of the High Commission officials was oppressive or actuated by bad faith given the volume of work they must deal with and the conditions imposed by the pandemic.   [...]  If the Respondent continues to have concerns about the application a fairness letter shall be provided to the Applicants within 30 days of the date of this Judgment and Reasons and the Applicants shall have 30 days from receipt thereof in which to respond to the fairness letter;

Yu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 1172 - 2021-11-03

She was sent a procedural fairness letter notifying her that she may be inadmissible to Canada on grounds of misrepresenting her criminal history.   [...]  [12] I begin by noting that the cases relied on by the Applicant deal with innocent misrepresentations, and in my view, that is not what happened in the instant case.   [...]  [15] Turning to the second prong, we now ask whether her misrepresentation was material such that it could have induced an error in the administration of the IRPA. When her misrepresentation, and the possibility of inadmissibility resulting therefrom, was raised to the Applicant’s attention in a procedural fairness letter,

Young-taillon v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2016 FC 1158 - 2016-10-19

That is the type of context we are dealing with. [13] She also states that the applicant’s reaction was proportionate.   [...]  2. Did the Chairperson breach procedural fairness? VI. Standard of review   [...]  [29] Having found that the Chairperson’s analysis was unreasonable, it is unnecessary to address the questions of procedural fairness.

Barat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2016 FC 443 - 2016-04-20

[9] The Applicant also alleges that the Officer violated procedural fairness by failing to provide the Applicant an opportunity to prove his residency in Pakistan after 2006 and by failing to provide the Applicant an opportunity to be heard by not taking sufficient time to analyze in depth the facts and stories of each of   [...]  [12] For issues concerning procedural fairness, the correctness standard of review applies (Atahi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 753, at para 13, 413 FTR 122 [Atahi]; Karimzada v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 152, at para 10 [Karimzada]; Saifee, at para 25).   [...]  [25] Given my finding that the RPD’s decision is fatally flawed in this respect, there is no need to determine whether a breach of procedural fairness occurred or to deal with the Applicant’s request for certification of a question for the Federal Court of Appeal, a request that the Respondent opposed.

Dolinski v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2013 FC 1030 - 2013-10-10

[21] Here, the Advisory Body noted the conditional discharge and withdrawn charge, the RCMP reports, the Applicant’s possession of a scale, the text messages and calls, that he was using drugs on his break at work, the Applicant’s failure to address any of the information indicative of dealing, and the recent nature of the   [...]  2. Au moment de faire la détermination citée au sous-alinéa (1), l'Organisme consultatif peut considérer tout facteur pertinent, y compris:   [...]  ii. le trafic, la possession dans le but d'en faire le trafic, ou l'exportation ou l'importation dans le cadre de la Loi sur les drogues et substances contrôlées;

Balogun v. Canada - 2010 FCA 29 - 2010-01-27

[5] Justice Russell consolidated the appellant’s various arguments into four issues: the section 7 complaint; the debt issue; the section 10 complaint; and the procedural fairness issue.   [...]  [14] The National Defence Security Policy and Recruiting Directive deal with reliability checks for CF enrolment.   [...]  [18] With respect to the appellant’s allegation of breach of procedural fairness, Justice Russell thoroughly reviewed his arguments with respect to witnesses, overlooking evidence, disclosure and bias.

Tamber v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 951 - 2008-08-15

The Board was dealing with an appeal from an earlier decision by a visa officer denying Ms. Tamber’s application to sponsor her spouse, Jatinder Singh, for admission to Canada.   [...]  [10] 1. Did the Board breach the duty of procedural fairness in its treatment of the DNA evidence by failing to indicate a concern about its reliability?   [...]  The Board’s failure to observe this principle of fairness is, therefore, fatal to its decision.