11,309 result(s)
-
551.
Apolinario v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2016 FC 1287 - 2016-11-22
Federal Court DecisionsA. Procedural Fairness (1) Was the referral made by the Minister’s Delegate procedurally fair? [...] The first four of those deal with the scope of discretion of an officer or delegate. [...] The last two of the six deal with the duty of fairness owed by each of an officer and delegate in considering whether to prepare a report or make a referral.
-
552.
Tariku v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 474 - 2007-05-04
Federal Court Decisions[2] This application raises several issues but it is enough to deal with only one in order to dispose of this application for judicial review: did the Board breach the principles of procedural fairness in relying on undisclosed extrinsic evidence that was not part of the record at the hearing? [...] The question is whether the applicant had the opportunity of dealing with the evidence. [...] [...] I find that the applicant did not have the opportunity to deal with the evidence (Dasent, above).
-
553.
Mervilus v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2004 FC 1206 - 2004-09-02
Federal Court Decisions(c) He is the father of two children (in 1997; now three in 2004), for whom he shows a great deal of affection. [...] He had not been diligent in his dealings with his counsel. The member determined that the applicant's integration in Canada was unsatisfactory. [...] He was obviously absolutely ill-equipped to deal with the issue of the appeal which was decided, apparently without his awareness of it.
-
554.
Heron v. The Queen - 2017 TCC 71 - 2017-05-03
Tax Court of Canada Judgments(a) may prejudice or delay the fair hearing of the appeal; (b) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; [...] In the appellant’s view, the assumptions of fact dealing with his criminal conduct are vexatious and may prejudice or delay the fair hearing of the appeal or they disclose no reasonable ground for opposing the appeal. [...] He also argues that prior convictions may be relevant for cases dealing with estoppel, but the issue of estoppel was not raised by the respondent in this appeal.
-
555.
54039 Newfoundland and Labrador Limited (George Street Association) v. St. John's Port Authority - 2011 FC 740 - 2011-06-21
Federal Court DecisionsThe SJPA’s letters patent provide that the SJPA must ensure that leases not be for less than fair market value. [...] Since such an application is meant to be dealt with summarily, it is ordinarily more proper to deal with any objection to the application in the context of the hearing on the merits, if only because a full grasp of the facts and of the context will often be necessary to deal with the objection. [...] [56] As a consequence, I am satisfied that the Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with this application for judicial review.
-
556.
Mangat v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2016 FC 907 - 2016-08-09
Federal Court Decisions10. Regarding the 2009 peace bond, the Applicant said “This is the truth and I can’t sugar coat it.” The Applicant attended counselling services as a result, which helped him gain insight into the matters he was dealing with; [...] Moreover, both the purpose of the Act and the nature of the question deal with protecting the public by preventing acts of unlawful interference in civil aviation. [...] Moreover, both the purpose of the Act and the nature of the question deal with protecting the public by preventing acts of unlawful interference in civil aviation.
-
557.
Saulteaux First Nation v. Canada (Crown-Indigenous Relations) - 2024 FCA 100 - 2024-05-29
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsDid the Specific Claims Tribunal breach the principles of procedural fairness? [...] C. Did the Specific Claims Tribunal breach the principles of procedural fairness? [...] In those circumstances, I am unable to find any breach of procedural fairness.
-
558.
Shoan v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2018 FC 476 - 2018-05-07
Federal Court Decisions[82] In the present application, I am only looking at the possible need for a new process – and a meeting in particular – to deal fairly and reasonably with the two separate and distinct grounds cited in the May 4, 2017 Decision. [...] [137] In my view, then, the GIC’s process for dealing with the May 4, 2017 termination was not procedurally unfair on this basis. [...] [160] This affidavit and exhibits deal with the Privacy Act complaint.
-
559.
MacFarlane v. Day & Ross Inc. - 2010 FC 556 - 2010-05-26
Federal Court DecisionsThis again raises issues pertaining to natural justice and procedural fairness. [...] This procedural fairness element is reviewed as a question of law. No deference is due. [...] In my view, the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing and process was not violated.
-
560.
Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2018 FC 1290 - 2018-12-19
Federal Court DecisionsI note here that the Respondent deals with justiciability both in the context of standing and as a stand-alone issue. [...] Another question is whether the duty of procedural fairness applies to the GIC appointment decision and, if so, the content of any duty of procedural fairness owed to the Applicant in these circumstances. [...] [100] The Applicant also submits that the duty of consultation is properly regarded as an aspect of procedural fairness, thus permitting the Court to rely on the common law Baker factors to determine the content of that duty of fairness.
-
561.
Kwan v. Amex Bank of Canada - 2018 FCA 189 - 2018-10-15
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[11] With respect to Ms. Kwan’s allegation of a lack of procedural fairness, the role of the reviewing court for procedural fairness matters is simply to determine whether the procedure that was followed was fair, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case (Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney [...] [22] With respect to the requirements of procedural fairness, as noted by this Court in Canadian Pacific, at paragraph 56, “the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond”. [...] There is no basis to find that the proceeding was not procedurally fair.
-
562.
Best v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2011 FC 71 - 2011-01-20
Federal Court DecisionsFollowing submissions on the request to amend from both parties, the Commission agreed to deal with the amended complaint. [...] [14] The applicant now criticizes the Commission for having breached procedural fairness and for having made an unreasonable decision by refusing to deal with the complaint in question. [...] [18] The applicant’s claim that the Commission violated her right to procedural fairness must fail.
-
563.
Weatherill v. Canada (Attorney General) - 1999-05-28
Federal Court DecisionsOthers deal with facts that are so uncontroversial as to provide no substantive basis for objection. [...] The issue has been discussed extensively in cases dealing with the right of a person charged with an offence to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal as required by section 11(d) of the Charter. [...] Procedural fairness [90] The applicant argues that he was denied procedural fairness.
-
564.
Pizarro Gutierrez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2013 FC 623 - 2013-06-10
Federal Court Decisions[17] The applicant raised a number of issues, all of which deal with compliance with the rules of procedural fairness without really challenging the officer’s findings that he was a member of organizations described in paragraphs 34(1)(a)(b) and (c) of the IRPA or that he himself had engaged in acts of terrorism. [...] [23] Questions of procedural fairness must be assessed on a standard of correctness. [...] Again, procedural fairness did not require proceeding in that fashion in the circumstances.
-
565.
Mamut v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 406 - 2023-03-23
Federal Court Decisions[14] On reviewing the unredacted material filed by section 87 counsel, a fairly large document, 12 pages in length, was redacted in its entirety. [...] [109] When dealing with privileges, the Court will scrutinize them carefully. [...] This was sufficient in the circumstances to make the judicial review effective, meaningful and fair.
-
566.
Kohlenberg v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FC 414 - 2017-04-27
Federal Court Decisions[12] The determinative issue in this case is procedural fairness. The Applicant alleges that he was denied procedural fairness at all three levels of the grievance procedure. [...] I will deal with each objection separately. De novo issue [72] On the de novo issue, I have already found that a second-level grievance officer conducts a procedurally fair de novo hearing notwithstanding she or he has the first-level decision for review in the material in the docket or file. [...] The Federal Court is not simply another step in the grievance procedure, because while grievance officers deal with the merits of a case, this Court normally does not.
-
567.
Canada Post Corporation v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2007 FC 1362 - 2007-12-21
Federal Court DecisionsDid the appeals officer breach the duty of fairness by failing to provide Canada Post with an opportunity to deal with two issues raised in his decision? [...] All the other matters, then, you’re just going to have to deal with somewhere else.” [...] Just go ahead and if there’s a problem with it that deals with fairness, then Mr. Bird will raise it.”
-
568.
Pope v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 644 - 2005-05-06
Federal Court DecisionsI am prepared to deal with this matter. The Applicant, Ms Natasha Pope, has failed to appear for the hearing for this application for a judicial review. [...] Dealing first with the question of procedural fairness. Ms Pope asserts that she was denied procedural fairness during her refugee hearing by virtue of the conduct of the presiding Member. [...] In addressing the question of the availability of State protection, the presiding Member made reference to a United States Department of State report dealing with violence against women in St. Vincent and The Grenadines.
-
569.
Moran v. Canada (Industry Canada) - 2001 FCT 561 - 2001-05-31
Federal Court DecisionsDid the CHRC render its decision in breach of the rules of procedural fairness? [...] the present case, it is appropriate to summarize the law relating to procedural fairness in cases dealing with human rights complaints. [...] [24] In light of the decision I have reached on Issue 1, I need not deal with Issue 2.
-
570.
Bradford v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-CANADA) - 2015 FCA 84 - 2015-03-26
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[24] In the circumstances, there was no breach of procedural fairness or natural justice. [...] I am satisfied that the issue here cannot be characterized as a breach of procedural fairness. [...] [33] The Reconsideration Panel exercised its discretion as to what argument it would deal with on this reconsideration.
-
571.
Antillon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1998-11-09
Federal Court DecisionsI will deal with each submission in turn. [14] Counsel submits that the reason the Officer was rude to the Applicant was because she had looked at the FOSS Notes prior to the interview. [...] I think what she meant was, if you tell the police one thing and you tell us another, then you have to deal with the inconsistency you have created - it cannot be ignored. [...] In these circumstances, I can find no breach of the minimal duty of fairness imposed by Shah, supra.
-
572.
Siyaad v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2019 FC 448 - 2019-04-11
Federal Court Decisions(ii) soit faire rapport au juge de paix qu’il a saisi les biens et qu’il les détient ou veille à ce qu’ils le soient, [...] (2) Each Division shall deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit. [...] 49 In the absence of a provision in these Rules dealing with a matter raised during the proceedings, the Division may do whatever is necessary to deal with the matter.
-
573.
Waycobah First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2011 FCA 191 - 2011-06-06
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsThe only question is whether, in all the circumstances, the decision-making procedure was fair. [...] [30] The Act prescribes no procedures for dealing with requests for tax debt remission. [...] There was, in my opinion, no breach of the duty of fairness. Conclusions
-
574.
Salewsksi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 899 - 2008-07-23
Federal Court Decisions[10] In the letter, Officer Matsui also expressly stated that Regulation 60, which deals with revocation of a permanent resident card, does not apply in the Applicant’s situation. [...] [16] The first issue raised is one of procedural fairness, which is a question of law reviewable on a standard of correctness. [...] There is nothing in the statute that deals with whether a visa officer may review decisions already made.
-
575.
Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2005 FC 401 - 2005-03-23
Federal Court Decisions[2] The applicant argues that the Commission erred in law in deciding not to deal with the complaint on the merits without providing sufficient reasons, as required by the Act. [...] 42. (1) Subject to subsection (2), when the Commission decides not to deal with a complaint, it shall send a written notice of its decision to the complainant setting out the reason for its decision. [...] Therefore, the decision does not provide sufficient reasons to comply with the rules of procedural fairness.