11,317 result(s)
-
5,326.
Benzina v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 747 - 2021-07-16
Federal Court Decisions[3] Further, I find that the IAD did not deal with this appeal in bad faith. [...] Did the IAD violate the rules of procedural fairness by acting in bad faith? [...] In this analysis, the Court determines whether the procedure was fair in light of all the circumstances.
-
5,327.
Canadian Airport Workers Union v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers - 2019 FCA 263 - 2019-10-22
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[19] Turning to CAWU’s unfair labour practice application, the Board ruled that since it had not considered IAMAW’s revocation evidence, no labour relations purpose would be served by dealing with the matter. [...] [24] More recently, this Court canvassed the jurisprudence on the standard of review for procedural fairness: see Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at paras. 34-56, [2019] 1 F.C.R. 121. [...] In the circumstances, I find that CAWU’s right to procedural fairness has not been breached.
-
5,328.
Romelus v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2019 FC 172 - 2019-02-11
Federal Court Decisions[16] The RAD did not deal with Mr. Romelus’ fear in respect of Haiti. [...] [20] In his memorandum, Mr. Romelus argues that the RAD (1) erred in law; (2) should have taken into account the expiry of his permanent resident status; (3) should have concluded that he was a victim of persecution; (4) misjudged his credibility; and (5) breached procedural fairness. [...] Thus, according to the language of Article 1E of the Convention, it does seem fair to conclude that Mr. Romelus is a person referred to in Article 1E of the Convention.
-
5,329.
Aboagye v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited - 2016 FC 400 - 2016-04-11
Federal Court Decisions[21] On December 12, 2013, the Commission delivered its decision not to deal with the Applicant’s human rights complaint. [...] I find that the argument is not based on a fair reading of the evidence. [...] As a result, I find that no duty of fairness owed to the Applicant was breached.
-
5,330.
Brosnan v. Bank of Montreal - 2015 FC 925 - 2015-07-29
Federal Court Decisions[22] Ms. Brosnan submits that the Commission breached her right to procedural fairness by failing to address her complaint regarding the Bank’s duty to accommodate. [...] This was a breach of Ms. Brosnan’s right to procedural fairness. As Justice Mosley wrote in Carroll: [...] [67] The case law clearly establishes that an investigation which does not deal with the substance of a complaint, fails to investigate a relevant question, or fails to consider crucial evidence is unfair because it is not thorough.
-
5,331.
Saibu v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2015 FC 255 - 2015-02-27
Federal Court Decisions2. Whether the Decisions breached the Applicant’s right to procedural fairness; [...] [17] The Applicant also submits that he was denied procedural fairness. [...] The Applicant says this could affect future dealings. However, this is pure speculation and the Applicant had no problem in securing passports with a new application.
-
5,332.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Franchi - 2011 FCA 136 - 2011-04-14
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsFurther, on a fair reading, the Board’s reasons informed Mr Franchi of the bases of its decision. [...] This failure on the Board’s part to articulate constitutes a breach of procedural fairness, and no deference whatsoever is owed. [...] [41] Since the duty of fairness does not require procedural perfection, the Appeal Division is not to be faulted because it did not deal explicitly with every argument advanced by Mr Franchi in respect of the extent of his financial disclosure.
-
5,333.
MacKay v. Canada (National Revenue) - 2008 FC 1074 - 2008-09-23
Federal Court Decisions[13] On August 19, 2005, the Applicant made a subsequent request for fairness on the basis of extraordinary circumstances. [...] (b) since the Applicant declined to provide evidence of financial hardship, that aspect of the fairness provisions was not engaged; [...] [21] It appears that the Decision did not always deal with the Applicant’s arguments.
-
5,334.
Lu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 159 - 2007-02-13
Federal Court Decisions(1) Did the Applicant’s receipt of letters from both Manager Beaupre and Officer Tsang, explaining why he was found to be inadmissible to Canada, violate procedural fairness? [...] (3) Did Officer Tsang’s letter provide insufficient reasons as to why the Applicant’s permanent residence application was being denied and as such violate procedural fairness? [...] (1) Did the Applicant’s receipt of letters from both Manager Beaupre and Officer Tsang, explaining why he was found to be inadmissible to Canada, violate procedural fairness?
-
5,335.
Canada v. Anchor Pointe Energy Ltd. - 2003 FCA 294 - 2003-07-02
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsIt did not deal with the issue of fair market value which was the basis of the Minister's original reassessment. [...] In other words, if Anchor Pointe is unsuccessful in its appeal to the Tax Court, the result will be only to reduce the CEE deductions to take account of the Minister's reassessment based on fair market value. [...] The reassessment increased taxes payable by reducing CEE deductions by the difference between the amount claimed and the amount based on the Minister's estimation of the fair market value of the seismic data.
-
5,336.
Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - 2007 FC 455 - 2007-04-27
Federal Court Decisions[103] On a fair reading of the ‘113 Patent, it is evident that it purports to be a selection patent. [...] Dealing with semi-synthetic penicillin, the Court (per Cooke J.) said: [...] His affidavit deals only with the issue of whether or not these trials were “public”.
-
5,337.
9255-2504 Québec Inc. c. Canada (Procureur général) - 2023 CF 1719 - 2023-12-19
Federal Court Decisions [ French ]Ce risque était difficilement envisageable puisqu’il s’accorde si peu avec les notions canadiennes de traitement équitable, ou ‘fair dealing’ ». [...] La Cour d’appel fédérale conclut que ce risque était difficilement envisageable, car une telle façon de faire s’accorde très peu avec les notions de traitement équitable ou de « fair dealing » : [...] Ce risque était difficilement envisageable puisqu’il s’accorde si peu avec les notions canadiennes de traitement équitable, ou « fair dealing ».
-
5,338.
Slimani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 430 - 2023-03-28
Federal Court Decisions[15] The first question concerns the RAD’s substantive conclusion that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness before the RPD. In raising this question, the applicant does not allege a breach of procedural fairness by the RAD. Instead, he raises issues of bias before the RPD. This distinction leads me to conclude [...] Despite counsel’s submissions at the end of the hearing, the RAD was not “of the opinion that this raised an issue of procedural fairness for the [applicant] since it occurred after the questioning had finished and his counsel was making his representations”. [...] In Olah v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 921 (Olah) at para 15, Justice Southcott further explained this principle in dealing with an application for judicial review of a Hungarian Roma family:
-
5,339.
Jefferson v. Canada - 2022 FCA 81 - 2022-05-13
Federal Court of Appeal Decisionsa particular person (transferee) for the unpaid income tax debt of another person (tax debtor) if, at the time the tax debt is outstanding, the tax debtor transfers property to the transferee for less than fair market value consideration, and the tax debtor and transferee are not dealing with each other at arm’s length. [...] As a result, the onus shifted to the respondent to prove that the appellant provided less than fair market value consideration for the cheques and, as the respondent adduced no evidence, the appellant is entitled to succeed. [...] Under the Reasons section of his Notice of Appeal before the Tax Court, the appellant submitted “there was no transfer of property to him for less than fair market value consideration”.
-
5,340.
Yu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2020 FC 527 - 2020-04-17
Federal Court DecisionsThese include the merits of the judicial reviews being determined, personal circumstances of the Applicant’s changing, new relevant case law, a new practice direction affecting the outcomes, policies of the CBSA changing, or a surge in adjourned and delayed stay motions requiring greater judicial resources to deal with [...] Significantly, the determinative issue was that of fairness, (“the underlying application concerns the fairness of the process”). [...] The take-away point however, is that no issue of fairness or the interest of justice arises in this matter to support the Applicants’ reliance on the decision.
-
5,341.
Tineo Luongo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2011 FC 618 - 2011-05-25
Federal Court Decisions[10] There is no dispute that in respect of questions of procedural fairness, the Court will intervene if, applying the correctness standard, there is a breach (Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, at para 43; Gulati, above, at para 20). [...] Justice Russel Zinn’s comments in Ferguson v MCI, 2008 FC 1067 deal with this question albeit in a slightly different context where the decision maker was looking at a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment application. [...] Fairness to all visa applicants requires that all applicants conform to the instructions they receive as to the type and quality of documentation required in support of their applications, thus ensuring a minimum of efficiency and equity in the system.
-
5,342.
Miller v. Canada - 2006 FC 1446 - 2006-11-30
Federal Court DecisionsWe were permitted to provide information and make submissions but this was only because officials had to appear to be fair. [...] They were not fair, because they never had any intention of seriously considering a positive recommendation in Elena’s case. [...] It makes it worse when there is a process which holds out a promise of fair treatment, but it is actually a sham.
-
5,343.
Williamson v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2005 FC 954 - 2005-07-06
Federal Court Decisions9 While the issue on this application for judicial review is clearly not the scope of documentation relevant to the application, the principle that the Court will deal only with the grounds of review invoked by the applicant in the originating notice of motion and in the supporting affidavit must, I am satisfied, govern. [...] 110.1.(1)(c) the total of all amounts each of which is the fair market value of a gift (other than a gift described in paragraph 110.1(1)(d)) of an object that the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board has determined meets the criteria set out in paragraphs 29(3)(b) and (c) [...] 118.1(1) "total cultural gifts" of an individual for a taxation year means the total of all amounts each of which is the fair market value of a gift
-
5,344.
Mahzooz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2002 FCT 926 - 2002-09-03
Federal Court Decisions2. The visa officer rendered a decision in contravention of the duty of procedural fairness. [...] The visa officer rendered a decision in contravention of the duty of procedural fairness [...] These include parts of A19 dealing with national security [A19(1)(f), (k) and (l)].
-
5,345.
Sirius Canada Inc. v. CMRRA/SODRAC Inc. - 2010 FCA 348 - 2010-12-16
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[14] For our purposes, the infrastructure and operations of the two American services, on which the Canadian services rely, are fairly similar. [...] [10] I propose to deal first with the Sirius application (A-209-09) and then with the CSI application (A-210-09). [...] [14] It is convenient at the outset to deal with a relatively minor preliminary point.
-
5,346.
Oberlander v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2008 FC 1200 - 2008-10-27
Federal Court DecisionsOn that issue, a fair reading of the submissions is (a) that Oberlander was conscripted against his will; and (b) that Oberlander had no personal involvement in the criminal activities or war crimes. [...] [76] In “Oberlander /2004” the Court of Appeal was particularly concerned that the Cabinet had not engaged in a fair balance of interests. [...] La communication de l’avis peut se faire par courrier recommandé envoyé à la dernière adresse connue de l’intéressé.
-
5,347.
Fibrogen, Inc. v. Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. - 2021 FCA 235 - 2021-12-01
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsThese Reasons deal only with the request for an interim stay of the Federal Court’s Order until such time the motion for the stay pending appeal is disposed of. [...] [7] In the Order under appeal, the Federal Court declined to deal with the appellant’s arguments related to the implied undertaking rule and, as noted, ruled in the respondents’ favour in respect of the arguments premised on the confidentiality agreement. [...] [20] On this point, I believe it fair that the respondents should have until January 14, 2022, if they wish, to file their responding materials in light of the length of the appellant’s motion materials and the nature of the issues raised in the motion for a stay.
-
5,348.
Time Development Group Inc. v. Times Group Corporation - 2017 FCA 125 - 2017-06-14
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[9] The judge also concluded that it was not necessary to deal with the issue of passing off in light of the conclusion on infringement. [...] First, this argument was not clearly made in the appellants’ written submissions before the Federal Court, and it is not clear to me that this submission was fairly before that Court. [...] However, even if the argument was made, it was not a reviewable error for the judge to decline to expressly deal with it.
-
5,349.
Chitrakar v. Bell TV - 2013 FC 1103 - 2013-10-29
Federal Court DecisionsToute personne doit être informée de toute collecte, utilisation ou communication de renseignements personnels qui la concernent et y consentir, à moins qu’il ne soit pas approprié de le faire. [...] Chitrakar spent a considerable period dealing with the Bell bureaucracy and in pursuing his claim. [...] I take account of Bell’s dealings with Chitrakar as well as its reactions to the Privacy Commissioner and her recommendations and its failure to take these proceedings seriously.
-
5,350.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Smith - 2012 FCA 326 - 2012-12-07
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[2] The PSST determined that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint brought by the Respondent because it did not involve an appointment or a revocation under the Public Service Employment Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22 (PSEA). [...] The letter announced that CBSA had decided to rotate the dog handling duties in light of the following considerations: fair distribution of career opportunities, employee career objectives, service time as a handler, and the overall experience base within the district. [...] Jurisdiction is there for a purpose; the Tribunal should accept its mandate and deal with matters such as the present one.