11,315 result(s)
-
5,101.
Lilly Icos LLC v. Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals - 2006 FC 1500 - 2006-12-14
Federal Court DecisionsA document is also relevant if it may fairly lead to a chain of inquiry that may have the consequence of advancing or damaging a party’s case. [...] One must look at what is reasonable and fair under the circumstances: Smith, Kline & French Ltd. v. A.-G. Can., per Addy J. at p. 109. [...] It is more convenient and clear to deal with each heading rather than question by question – with such comments about a particular question as may be appropriate or to carve out an exception to the conclusion with respect to the class of documents.
-
5,102.
Toligara Nazaire v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 416 - 2006-03-30
Federal Court DecisionsShe deals with all the evidence presented and comes to reasonable conclusions in both instances. [...] [17] The respondent claims that the Officer could not make a fair decision because the Federal Court sanctioned her first decision. [...] [18] In this case, the applicant failed to establish that an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically, and having thought the matter through, would determine that it was more likely than not that the decision-maker had not decided fairly.
-
5,103.
Burns Lake Native Development Corporation v. Canada (Commissioner of Competition) - 2006 FCA 97 - 2006-03-07
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsLe Tribunal peut accueillir la demande s'il conclut que la personne a établi que les modalités ne pourraient faire l'objet d'une ordonnance du Tribunal. [...] In these circumstances, fairness did not require the Tribunal to permit the appellants to bring a formal motion to strike the reference. [...] They rely on jurisprudence of this Court dealing with questions referred by administrative tribunals under the similarly worded section 18.3 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.
-
5,104.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khan - 2005 FC 398 - 2005-03-22
Federal Court DecisionsFor the respondents, this is an implicit recognition by Parliament that the duty of fairness due to the Minister in that respect is lower than the one owed to claimants. [...] [26] The Court agrees that the adequacy and sufficiency of reasons depends on the circumstances and that the duty of fairness is also a flexible concept that depends on the context. [...] This was a breach of procedural fairness. This is a reviewable error (Ha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. 174 (C.A.)).
-
5,105.
Chaudhry v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 200 - 2005-02-08
Federal Court Decisions[10] Allegations of bias are most serious in that they go to the root of our system of justice, a fair hearing before an impartial decision maker. [...] However, it was also noted that a great deal of stress was raised because of the uncertainty of the outcome of the Canadian hearings and what was perceived to be harsh treatment by the first Panel member, accusations soundly rejected by the Board. [...] It must carry out its duties, in a fair and humane manner, even though some claimants may be more prone to stress than others.
-
5,106.
Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Malo - 2003 FCA 466 - 2003-12-03
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsIn her opinion, the mere fact that a party is obliged to continue participating in a hearing already in progress could not constitute an incurable denial of its right to a fair hearing. [...] [17] The Government argues that its appeal, if successful, will finally establish that the Tribunal is institutionally incapable of providing it with a fair hearing, and if the stay is denied, its forced participation in Tribunal proceedings would be an incurable denial of its right to a fair hearing. [...] In this regard, I note that the Government has not argued that the manner in which it might conduct its cross-examination of the remaining witnesses for the Commission and the PSAC, or the manner in which it may deal with any evidentiary arguments, will depend on the legal effect of the guidelines.
-
5,107.
Kojouri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2003 FC 1389 - 2003-11-26
Federal Court Decisions1. Did the visa officer commit an error of law or fact, or breach the principle of procedural fairness? [...] These errors, in the circumstances of this case, constitute a breach of the duty of fairness the visa officer owed to the applicant. [...] [21] Because of my finding on this issue, I need not deal with the other issues raised in this application.
-
5,108.
Rojas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2003 FCT 394 - 2003-04-02
Federal Court DecisionsI deal with these issues in turn. The Issue of Credibility [12] In considering the issue of credibility, the standard of review for the Court is whether or not the panel's finding is patently unreasonable; see Rahaman v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, [2000] F.C.J. No. 1800 (T.D.) (QL). [...] [15] For the applicant, it is submitted that he was denied fairness in the process of the panel in two respects. [...] For the applicant, the following questions concerning fairness of the process in considering Article 1F(a) are suggested.
-
5,109.
Desroches v. The Queen - 2001-05-01
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsThe rent charged was less than fair market value as the Appellant was anxious to rent as quickly as possible as he needed the funds. [...] [12] So, I will deal with the REOP test. I find the Appellant did not have a reasonable expectation of profit for the following reasons. [...] As the Appellant acknowledged, to keep the house he needed to generate some income quickly, and therefore rented at less than fair market value.
-
5,110.
Badejo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2000-11-30
Federal Court Decisionsapplication indicate the immigration officer failed to fully and fairly assess the applicants' application for an extraordinary exemption from the requirements of the Act. [...] I am of the view, however, that once the officer gave the undertaking to write a letter, it was a breach of the duty of fairness owed to the applicants not to write the letter. [...] [21] Because of my disposition above, it is not necessary for me to deal with the
-
5,111.
Bilodeau v. The Queen - 1999-09-29
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[3] All or substantially all of the fair market value of the Coop’s assets was attributable to investments made up of shares of Normick Chambord Inc. (“Chambord”), a company incorporated in 1987 to operate a waferboard factory in Lac St-Jean, Quebec. [...] including, for the purposes of paragraph 39(1)(c), a corporation that was at any time in the 12 months preceding that time a small business corporation, and, for the purposes of this definition, the fair market value of a net income stabilization account shall be deemed to be nil . . . . [...] I am of the view, however, that in Section 39 of the Income Tax Act [the former section dealing with associated companies], the word “controlled” contemplates the right of control that rests in ownership of such a number of shares as carries with it the right to a majority of the votes in the election of the board of
-
5,112.
Liang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1999-08-20
Federal Court DecisionsTherefore, she submits that the Visa Officer breached her duty of procedural fairness in rejecting her application, without considering the certificate. [...] Procedural Fairness [16] It is trite law that an applicant may only seek judicial review based on the evidence before the administrative board or other tribunal at the time of the board"s decision. [...] The Visa Officer did not breach her duty of procedural fairness when she refused to reconsider her decision based on the submission of the certificate.
-
5,113.
Mcallister v. Maritime Employers Association - 1997-03-06
Federal Court DecisionsThey submit there was an obligation on the investigator to disclose this correspondence, and in not doing so, principles of procedural fairness or natural justice had been denied them. [...] I do not see how the applicant could be given a fair opportunity to meet the case against her without being given an opportunity to confront directly particular evidence against her and to test the credibility of its proponents. [...] It is not necessary to deal with the other arguments of the applicants.
-
5,114.
Bilida v. Canada (National Revenue) - 1996-12-18
Federal Court DecisionsIn February of 1994, the applicant learned about "The Fairness Package Legislation" and on March 2, 1994, wrote to the Minister of Revenue seeking relief under the new legislation. [...] When she did not receive a response from the department, the applicant again wrote on September 7, 16 and 28, 1994, seeking relief from the payment of interest and penalties on arrears under "The Fairness Package Legislation". [...] The purpose of this legislative provision is to allow Revenue Canada, Taxation to administer the tax system more fairly, by allowing for the application of common sense in dealing with taxpayers who, because of personal misfortune or circumstances beyond their control are unable to meet deadlines or comply with rules under
-
5,115.
Canada (Governor General in Council) v. Mikisew Cree First Nation - 2016 FCA 311 - 2016-12-07
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[12] The Judge then considered whether the honour of the Crown in its dealings with Aboriginal peoples mandated a departure from the traditional separation of powers doctrine with respect to the legislative process. [...] As the Supreme Court stated in TeleZone, “[j]udicial review is directed at the legality, reasonableness, and fairness of the procedures employed and actions taken by government decision makers” (at para. 24). [...] (b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;
-
5,116.
Rezaei v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) - 2020 FC 444 - 2020-03-27
Federal Court Decisions[9] The Applicant is raising procedural fairness and reasonableness issues. [...] That resulted in the Court finding that it was not fair in these circumstances for the visa officer not to have alerted the applicant of his concerns regarding his business plan. [...] [17] I believe that the particular circumstances of that case namely the fact that it took more than seven years to process the applicant’s visa application, the promptness in dealing with said application after the applicant was requested to provide a detailed list of updated information that did not include the provision
-
5,117.
Aladenika v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 528 - 2018-05-18
Federal Court DecisionsThe analytical framework is not so much one of correctness or reasonableness but, rather, one of fairness. [...] B. Did the Officer breach Procedural Fairness? [14] The Applicants contend that the Officer breached procedural fairness by raising issues about their documentary evidence, including issues with copy quality and the absence of corroborating documentation, without providing them with an opportunity to respond to such issues. [...] [16] In my view, the Officer did not breach procedural fairness or otherwise unfairly assess the evidence provided by the Applicants.
-
5,118.
Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Health) - 2017 FC 127 - 2017-02-01
Federal Court DecisionsThis is one part of Apotex’s complaint of breach of procedural fairness. [...] This is another element of Apotex’s challenge to procedural fairness. [...] D. Procedural Fairness [60] With respect to the procedural fairness issues, these are examined separately from the reasonableness of the Decision.
-
5,119.
Gomravi v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2015 FC 431 - 2015-04-17
Federal Court DecisionsMadam Justice Mactavish allowed the judicial review as she found Mr. Gomravi had been denied procedural fairness in the adjudication process. [...] 3) Did CIC breach procedural fairness? V. Standard of review [23] The issues of jurisdiction and procedural fairness are to be reviewed against the standard of correctness (Dias v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 64, aff’d in 2014 FCA 195 at para 11 [Dias]; Sketchley v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 404 at para 70). [...] She pointed out that subsection 10(a) (now paragraph 10(2)(a) of the CPO) deals with people who have been charged with an offence, while section 9 covers both those who have been charged (subsection 9(b) and (c)) and those who have been convicted (subsection 9(e)).
-
5,120.
Afzal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 1028 - 2014-10-29
Federal Court Decisions[34] The Court of Appeal, in Veleta v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 138, made clear its view as to the application of the principles of procedural fairness in matters dealing with citizenship. [...] The obligation to provide notice and the duty of fairness discharged by the two calls to the applicant by officer Cantin. [...] [35] In any event, even if there was a breach of procedural fairness, I would withhold relief.
-
5,121.
R.S. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 860 - 2012-07-06
Federal Court Decisions1. The Board breached its duty of procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons; [...] No violation of the duty of procedural fairness through the issuance of inadequate reasons [...] [...] It is true that the breach of a duty of procedural fairness is an error in law.
-
5,122.
Bagshaw v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2012 FC 291 - 2012-03-06
Federal Court Decisions[20] The primary task of the Court is to assess the requirements outlined in CD-705-7 and the related question of the scope of the duty of fairness in this instance. [...] On this narrow basis, the Applicant may have raised valid concerns regarding procedural fairness. [...] [48] Given my discussion with respect to Issue A, it is not necessary for me to deal extensively with whether the application is moot.
-
5,123.
Garcia Porfirio v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2011 FC 794 - 2011-06-29
Federal Court Decisions(c) Did the Officer breach the duty of fairness? III. Standard of Review [...] [26] Questions of procedural fairness are reviewed against the correctness standard. [...] [52] The Respondent submits that there was no breach of procedural fairness and I agree with him.
-
5,124.
Hughes v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2010 FC 837 - 2010-08-23
Federal Court Decisions[12] Mr. Hughes’ allegation of bias on the part of the Commission also raises a question of procedural fairness. [...] Instead, it is for the Court to determine whether the requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness were met in this case. [...] However, in making this determination, the process followed by the Commission must be fair.
-
5,125.
Colley West Shipping Company Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 1419 - 2006-11-23
Federal Court Decisions... f) sur avis ou dans les cas prévus par règlement faire sortir du Canada la personne qu’il a amenée ou fait amener; [...] Determinations of agency are matters that courts deal with regularly and have greater expertise in them than government officials. [...] [58] There has been no breach of procedural fairness. IV. CONCLUSION