Advanced Search

Lukacs v. Canada (Transportation Agency) - 2016 FCA 202 - 2016-07-25

That said, the range of outcomes is fairly narrow given that this is a straight question of statutory interpretation.   [...]  [31] The Agency is right in stating that the Act creates no general obligation to deal with any complaint regarding compliance with the Act and its regulations.   [...]  (i) à faire circuler et à exploiter ses trains sur toute partie de l’embranchement,

Irving Shipbuilding Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2008 FC 1102 - 2008-10-01

The invocation of national security exceptions also ousted the jurisdiction of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) which normally deals with complaints arising from bid evaluations and the award of federal government contracts.   [...]  [14] Having opted for a competitive bidding process, the principles of procedural fairness and the right to expect the decision-maker to be impartial apply.   [...]  [53] However, with all deference to Commander Hallé, we are dealing with perception, not necessarily reality.

Merck & Co. Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - 2005 FC 582 - 2005-04-28

[20] Mr. Murray's affidavit described the burden that discovery had already occasioned Merck in these proceedings and asserted that further responses from the document storage facilities would entail a great deal of time, effort, a large volume of materials, and take time away from the workers' other duties.   [...]  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.   [...]  [64] A great deal of time and effort has been expended by the parties, as well as by the Court, in these proceedings.

Chabot v. Canada - 2001 FCA 383 - 2001-12-07

In obiter, she added that the taxpayer had not established the fair market value of the paintings with the aid of independent experts.   [...]  [17] That paragraph deals with blameworthy conduct on the part of a taxpayer in his or her formal relationship with Revenue Canada.   [...]  One cannot fault the plaintiff for putting the best possible light on the situation, including the suggested two deals, as long as the main feature is not hidden.

Suresh (Re) - 1997-11-14

b) d'autre part, dans les trois jours suivant la remise, d'envoyer un avis à l'intéressé l'informant de la remise et du fait que, à la suite du renvoi à la Cour fédérale, il pourrait faire l'objet d'une mesure d'expulsion.   [...]  (i) soit le juge en chef ou son délégué détermine que les renseignements ne sont pas pertinents ou, s'ils le sont, devraient faire partie du résumé mentionné à l'alinéa (4)b),   [...]  A great deal of the evidence made before me by the respondent was made during in camera sessions and, in a number of instances, it could, I was told, be dangerous if it were known that certain specific persons gave evidence for and on behalf of the LTTE or the Tamil cause.

Dunn v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2019 FC 403 - 2019-04-04

[4] On August 24, 2016, an Assessment for Decision (A4D) was drafted, which (1) noted that Mr. Dunn’s refusal to cooperate remained very concerning and that Mr. Dunn had adopted the same conduct regarding the murder of which he had been convicted, which requires a great deal of caution and raises significant concern; (2)   [...]  [7] More specifically, Mr. Dunn argued that, in mentioning his refusal to cooperate, the Board (1) had not ensured that the information it was relying on was reliable and persuasive, as required by Mooring v Canada (National Parole Board), [1996] 1 SCR 75; (2) had failed in its duty to act fairly; and (3) had completely   [...]   before the Board; (4) he is asked about it at each personal counselling session with workers; (5) the August 2016 A4D mentions it in the second paragraph on page 3 and third paragraph on page 9; and (6) the Board’s decision dated October 6, 2016, also deals with it (page 3 at para 7; page 5 at para 4; page 6 at para 1).

Vung v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2016 FC 892 - 2016-08-02

v. In 2011, admitted to police of having been in the drug trade since he was 13 years old and mostly deals with crack.   [...]  [8] At the hearing, the applicant’s counsel did not pursue before the Court the general allegation made in his memorandum of fact and law that a breach of procedural fairness had occurred.   [...]   is presently accused of Trafficking and Possession for the Purposes of Trafficking, who has been convicted of Breaking and Entering with Intent, who is a member of the West Bradley et al street gang, and who has admitted to police having been involved in the drug trade since he was 13 years old, dealing mostly with crack;

Balog v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 449 - 2014-05-09

Recent cases dealing with sur place claims arising from the arrival of the Sun Sea and Ocean Lady vessels have also determined that reasonableness is applicable to the Board’s assessment of such claims: Sivaraththinam v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 162 at para 33; S.A. v Canada (Minister of   [...]  [12] In Hannoon v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 448 at para 42, Justice O’Keefe concluded that a Board’s omission to deal with part of an applicant’s claim, such as a sur place matter, involves an error of law that is reviewable on a standard of correctness.   [...]  Justice Rennie, in Varga v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 494 at para 6 considered that the failure to address a ground of persecution raised on the face of the record was a breach of procedural fairness, reviewable on a correctness standard.

Grant v. Canada (Attorney general) - 2013 FC 1234 - 2013-12-10

12. (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi, tout citoyen canadien et tout résident permanent au sens du paragraphe 2(1) de la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés ont le droit de se faire communiquer sur demande:   [...]   of sections 12(1), 25 and 26 of the Act to the information redacted at pages 25 to 37 of the documents provided by the CRA. She sought written clarification about their application and demanded an explanation for the unjustified delay in dealing with her request and her inability to reach the CRA’s representative.   [...]  In this regard, the respondent contends that the only excluded information deals with an individual other than the applicant.

Canada v. Craig - 2011 FCA 22 - 2011-01-21

I can think of no reason why Gunn, a decision of this Court dealing with a previous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in a non-Charter case, should be treated as having less precedential effect than a case dealing with the Charter.   [...]  [26] The facts of this case may be fairly close to the line, and I might not have made the same decision as the Judge.

Milojevic v. The Queen - 2008 TCC 564 - 2008-10-06

(a) to have made a supply of the property or service for consideration paid at that time equal to the fair market value of the property or service at that time; and   [...]  [18] There has been considerable case law dealing with what is meant by gross negligence in the context of the Income Tax Act.[4] The same criteria apply when dealing with the Excise Tax Act. The older case of Venne v. Her Majesty the Queen[5] is often relied upon in establishing the principle that gross negligence involves

St-Fort v. The Queen - 2008 TCC 23 - 2008-01-21

(q) at the time of the transfer, that is, on April 7, 1997, the immovable's fair market value was $220,000; and   [...]  This relationship means that they are related persons within the meaning of subsection 251(2) of the Act and therefore are deemed, under paragraph 251(1)(a) of the Act, not to be dealing with each other at arm's length.   [...]  [18] Thus, the condition for the application of section 160 of the Act which is disputed here — namely, the condition with regard to the transfer of property to persons (here, René St-Fort's parents) with whom the transferor (René St-Fort) was not dealing at arm's length — has been met.

Marshall v. Canada - 2006 FC 1079 - 2006-09-08

[4] Rules 400 to 422 deal with the issue of costs on applications for judicial review as well as in relation to actions.   [...]  They mention that their position was based on a distinct issue – namely, the fact that the plaintiff’s claim against the unions was based on a violation of a duty of fair representation which ought to be addressed in another forum.   [...]  In fact, one of the grounds of appeal of the plaintiff is that the Court did not deal with the unions’ arguments.