11,315 result(s)
-
5,076.
Moses v. Canada - 2003 FC 1417 - 2003-12-03
Federal Court DecisionsDealing 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.
-
5,077.
Lenester Sales Ltd. v. The Queen - 2003 TCC 531 - 2003-07-31
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[22] Before dealing with subsection (5.1), let us consider just what we have here. [...] (a) the unusual fairness to the franchisee; (b) the nominal initial franchise fee paid to GTS; and [...] He suggests that therefore the phrase "dealing at arm's length" is to be interpreted as implicitly being qualified by the word "otherwise" if it is to make any sense.
-
5,078.
Echo Bay Mines Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) - 2003 FCA 270 - 2003-06-23
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsOnce 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:
-
5,079.
Roy v. The Queen - 2002-03-19
Tax Court of Canada Judgments(ii) to a person with whom the taxpayer was dealing at arm's length of any property that is [...] (iv) a debt owing to the taxpayer by a Canadian-controlled private corporation (other than, where the taxpayer is a corporation, a debt owing to it by a corporation with which it does not deal at arm's length) that is [...] (C) the fair market value of the share is nil, and (D) it is reasonable to expect that the corporation will be dissolved or wound up and will not commence to carry on business
-
5,080.
Ruby Trading S.A. v. Parsons - 2000-11-21
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsTherefore, 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.
-
5,081.
Nobbs v. M.N.R. - 2000-08-18
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsHe paid him, he said, on some occasions, with cows at fair market value. [...] The pertinent portions of section 43, dealing with the Commissioner's reconsideration, read as follows: [...] This subsection also sets out what the Court may do respecting assessments, thereby creating more confusion dealing with what the Court may do in respect of both a determination and an assessment.
-
5,082.
Canada (Attorney General) v. United States Steel Corporation - 2010 FC 642 - 2010-06-14
Federal Court DecisionsAccordingly, 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.
-
5,083.
Beauregard v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2015 FC 1383 - 2015-12-14
Federal Court DecisionsB. Does the decision under review violate the applicable guarantees of procedural fairness? [...] [26] The respondent noted in his memorandum that there is no case law dealing specifically with the applicable standard of review for decisions made pursuant to the CPC Directive A10. [...] [63] In light of the foregoing, I find that the breaches to procedural fairness were not cured.
-
5,084.
Kruco Inc. v. The Queen - 2001-07-17
Tax Court of Canada Judgments(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.
-
5,085.
Aquilini Estate v. The Queen - 2019 TCC 132 - 2019-06-12
Tax Court of Canada Judgments43. Each of the said three partnership agreements includes a section 11.02 dealing with the Allocation of Net Losses. [...] Fair, proper, just, moderate, suitable under the circumstances. Fit and appropriate to the end in view. [...] Not immoderate or excessive, being synonymous with rational, honest, equitable, fair, suitable, moderate, tolerable...
-
5,086.
Pinzon v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 945 - 2023-07-12
Federal Court DecisionsThe 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.
-
5,087.
Jalil v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 897 - 2022-06-16
Federal Court Decisions3. the Applicant was denied procedural fairness because the RAD failed to alert him to some of its key concerns to which he therefore had no opportunity to respond. [...] [15] The Applicant also raised an issue of procedural fairness, but in light of my finding that the RAD’s credibility assessment is unreasonable, it is not necessary to deal with this. [...] If the conclusion was explained based on a fair reading of the evidence in the record, the finding might be reasonable; as it is, however, this aspect of the decision is unreasonable.
-
5,088.
Djikounou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 584 - 2022-04-21
Federal Court DecisionsNor 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;
-
5,089.
Tahir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 1202 - 2021-11-08
Federal Court Decisions[4] The Respondent submits that the proceedings before the RAD were fair and the decision is reasonable. [...] [28] The Applicant raises other concerns about the reasonableness and fairness of the RAD’s decision. [...] I need not deal with them in light of my conclusions above. VII. Conclusion
-
5,090.
Yu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 1172 - 2021-11-03
Federal Court DecisionsShe 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,
-
5,091.
Del Mundo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2017 FC 754 - 2017-08-03
Federal Court DecisionsIn this exceptional situation, I will deal with all of the arguments. [...] Further, Mr. Del Mundo says that without notice that conjugal relationship was at issue that the couple was not prepared at the IAD hearing to answer allegations not in the original refusal letter and that this was not procedurally fair. [...] For all these reasons, this argument fails as the correct test was applied and Mr. Del Mundo was given notice and all the procedural fairness they were entitled to.
-
5,092.
Young-taillon v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2016 FC 1158 - 2016-10-19
Federal Court DecisionsThat 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.
-
5,093.
Whudne v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2016 FC 1033 - 2016-09-12
Federal Court Decisions[14] The Applicants submit that this question is one of procedural fairness and thus, the applicable standard of review is correctness (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 43; Chekroun v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 738 at para 37; Montesinos Hidalgo v Canada (Citizenship and [...] Whereas certain decisions of the Court have indicated that the issue of whether an oral hearing is required in the course of an application for Pre-Removal Risk Assessment is a question of procedural fairness that should be reviewed pursuant to the standard of correctness, while certain other decisions of the Court have [...] This failure to deal with a central issue is in and of itself an error, aside from the issue of procedural fairness (Chekroun, above at para 72).
-
5,094.
Barat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2016 FC 443 - 2016-04-20
Federal Court Decisions[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.
-
5,095.
Zaric v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2016 FCA 36 - 2016-02-04
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsIn recasting the test and setting out the relevant considerations in Pictou Landing, this Court noted (at paragraph 12) that they “faithfully implement some of the more central concerns that the Rothmans, Benson & Hedges factors were meant to address, while dealing with the challenges that regularly present themselves [...] For example, the fifth factor, consistency with Rule 3, is directed at the fair and orderly conduct of the proceeding before the Court, a concept that can embrace many practical considerations. [...] [12] For example, in Gitxaala Nation v. Canada, 2015 FCA 73 at paragraphs 21-24, under the rubric of fairness (or what is “just” within the meaning of Rule 3), this Court paid attention to the principle of “equality of arms.” It noted that the appearance of fairness can be harmed by allowing too many interveners on one side
-
5,096.
Dolinski v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2013 FC 1030 - 2013-10-10
Federal Court Decisions[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;
-
5,097.
Abdullahi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 960 - 2012-08-02
Federal Court DecisionsWhen an officer is not the only person dealing with applicants, who hears and decides may be less clear to them. [...] Officers should not appear to rely on someone else’s subject assessment (OP 1, Procedures, 8 (procedural fairness)). [...] [26] In my view, the officer treated the applicants fairly and arrived at reasonable conclusions based on the facts and the law.
-
5,098.
Balogun v. Canada - 2010 FCA 29 - 2010-01-27
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[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.
-
5,099.
Emani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2009 FC 520 - 2009-05-21
Federal Court Decisions(a) immediately, if the claimant is present at the hearing and the Division considers that it is fair to do so; or [...] a) sur-le-champ, dans le cas où il est présent à l’audience et où la Section juge qu’il est équitable de le faire; [...] There is a great deal of jurisprudence in these matters to the effect that a party must suffer the consequences of his or her own counsel.
-
5,100.
Tamber v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 951 - 2008-08-15
Federal Court DecisionsThe 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.