Advanced Search

Khosravi-Tabrizi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 226 - 2005-02-10

[3] It is obvious that, from the moment that the translation was known to be unreliable, a duty arose to rectify the problem exposed so as to be sure that the results of the hearing would be fair.   [...]  I place no onus on the Applicant in the present case; in my opinion, total responsibility to deal with the translation problem was on the RPD. I find that this responsibility was not met.

Thompson v. Canada - 2024 FC 1064 - 2024-07-08

The decision deals with the criteria to apply to admit fresh evidence on appeal after the evidence was not presented or adduced during trial.   [...]  Those grievances raised serious concerns with the Committee about the CHRC’s decision-making processes when dealing with human rights complaints.   [...]  The information from the reports is not taken under oath, can be hearsay, there is no opportunity for cross-examination, and no due process or procedural fairness necessary.

De Silva v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 790 - 2014-08-08

The so-called “fairness letters” sent to the applicant on July 27, 2012 and August 27, 2012 allowed the applicant the opportunity to respond fully to the questions that were raised and were rather explicit.   [...]  [15] The applicant argues that the standard of review concerning her first issue is correctness as it deals with the proper interpretation of statutes and regulations.   [...]  Whatever the decision made by the province in selecting candidates, the federal process continues to apply in order to deal with the issue of admissibility of the chosen candidate.

Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lynx Industries Inc. - 2010 FC 1287 - 2010-12-16

[27] There has been some confusion in dealing with the onus on such an appeal, largely because the appeal, particularly with new evidence, very much resembles an application.   [...]  . . . As for section 6(5)(e) of the Act, I consider there to be a fairly high degree of resemblance between the marks of the parties in all respects.   [...]  [46] I use this case to illustrate the errors of law committed by the Member in dealing with the issue of confusion in the present circumstances:

Corp. Steckmar/Steckmar Corp., Re - 2004 FC 581 - 2004-04-19

[26] Alternatively, the garnishee submitted that the garnishment proceeding is not a proper forum for dealing with remedies arising from articles 1512 and 1627 C.C.Q.   [...]  [32] Nevertheless, the garnishee argued that article 1627 requires an action, and that here we are dealing with an application by summary proceeding.   [...]  [28] The respondent contended that the questions raised by the appellant could not be resolved in a fair and appropriate manner with the use of affidavit evidence, even if the affiants were cross-examined.

Weche v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 649 - 2021-06-23

[6] In their written submissions, the applicants raised the issue of procedural fairness in that the RAD did not give them an opportunity to explain the anomalies identified in their file.   [...]  Did the RAD err in refusing to consider the best interests of Jamie-Lynn when dealing with the claim?   [...]  [9] When the RAD deals with claims for refugee protection under section 96 of the IRPA, it applies two standards.

Blank v. Canada (Environment) - 2015 FC 1251 - 2015-11-05

All records of Daniel Woo dealing with Gateway Industries Ltd. and/or Sheldon Blank on the subject of:   [...]  This request will include emails and notes of conversations dealing with the above subjects.   [...]  It must be a record of Mr. Woo dealing with Gateway Industries Ltd or Mr. Blank on certain specified subjects.

Varga v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 1030 - 2014-10-30

The last parliamentary elections in April 2010 were assessed as free and fair.   [...]  In any event, it is unclear how the Minorities Ombudsman, whose mandate is to deal with discrimination complaints, could provide state protection to the Applicants.   [...]  Because the RPD failed to deal with the evidence in this manner, I find that the RPD’s expectation of reporting placed on the Applicant constitutes a fact finding reviewable error.

Comtois International Export Inc. v. Livestock Express BV - 2013 FC 1239 - 2013-12-10

[78] That said, in the context of legislation dealing with the rights and obligations of common carriers and which implements international rules, I am satisfied that this expression would not and should not be understood to include charter-parties.   [...]  Charter-parties are contracts between commercial entities dealing directly with each other, whose execution and enforcement are the private concern of the contracting parties.   [...]   would be prejudiced by having to sue in the foreign Court because they would (i) be deprived of security for that claim; (ii) be unable to enforce any judgment obtained; (iii) be faced with a time-bar not applicable in England; or (iv) for political, racial, religious or other reasons be unlikely to get a fair trial?

Bichari v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2010 FC 127 - 2010-02-08

[14] As is customary when dealing with determinations of medical inadmissibility, the Bicharis were sent a fairness letter disclosing Mrs. Bichari’s inadmissibility and granting the applicants the opportunity to make submissions or provide documentary evidence.   [...]  [23] With regard to the two articles referred to by the Director, the applicants argue that (i) the 1994 article does not refer to the current situation in Algeria, and (ii) the other article does not specifically deal with the situation in Algeria and does not indicate whether immunosuppressant medicines are readily   [...]  [27] With these general principles in mind, I will first deal with the ancillary issue raised by the applicants with respect to the reliability and weight of the two articles mentioned in the impugned decision.

Gabriel v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2008 FC 1254 - 2008-11-10

If the commanding officer is not able to act as the IA, the grievance is forwarded to the commander who is responsible to deal with the subject of the grievance.   [...]  He did not make a harassment complaint and hence did not activate the internal procedure for dealing with the alleged harassment.   [...]  [28] Finally, the CFGB noted that the appropriate authority to deal with the Applicant’s request for financial compensation was the Director of Claims and Civil Litigation.

Reece v. Canada - 2006 FC 688 - 2006-06-05

Firstly, I must decide if the disclosure of the Briefing Note described above can be fairly described as inadvertent and, secondly, whether an inadvertent disclosure can be cured or corrected by the ex post facto issuance of the section 39 Canada Evidence Act Certificate.   [...]  In that decision, the Court noted that it was not dealing with information which had been improperly or illegally disclosed but, rather, “information which could, and perhaps should, have been kept confidential” as between the parties to the litigation (see page 12).   [...]  [19] Because the Supreme Court of Canada in Babcock, above, did not deal with the problem of inadvertent disclosure of Cabinet confidences, the Pelletier decision, above, is binding authority on that point.

Sadeghi-Pari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2004 FC 282 - 2004-02-26

[22] The documentary evidence that the Board relied on deals only with the question of homosexuality and lesbianism in Iran, and does not deal with broader cultural attitudes towards employed, single women living in the capital, Tehran.   [...]  a) faire des observations sur la fiabilité et l'utilisation du renseignement ou de l'opinion;   [...]  See for example, the decisions of Fosu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 90 F.T.R. 182, Husseini v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 20 Imm. L.R. (3d) 92 (F.C.T.D.), dealing with the issue of claimants not being permitted to display their religious beliefs in public.