Advanced Search

Ferroequus Railway Co. v. Canadian National Railway Co. - 2003 FCA 454 - 2003-11-26

The Agency also recognizes that the proponents provided a great deal of excellent evidence with respect to FE's proposal.   [...]  [37] Finally, FE submitted that the Agency breached the duty of procedural fairness in two respects.   [...]  [41] The second fairness argument is that the Agency breached the duty to be procedurally fair when it refused to accept written submissions made by FE after the date for submitting further material had passed.

Bykov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1999-09-22

The centrality of this principle is evident not only from the general jurisprudence dealing with interpreters, but also more directly from the language of s. 14 itself, which refers to "not understand[ing] or speak[ing] the language in which the proceedings are conducted".   [...]  En effet, j"ai constaté que mon client ne comprend pas suffisamment le russe pour faire son audition en russe.   [...]  Pour faire respecter les droits fondamentaux de mon client je me dois de vous demander de remettre l"audition jusqu"à ce qu"un interprète tchouvache ait été obtenu par vous.

Commissioner of Competition v. Labatt Brewing Company Limited - 2008 FC 59 - 2008-01-28

[4] There have been significant dealings between the office of Commissioner and both Labatt and Lakeport over the past several years.   [...]  [S]tate its own case fairly and must inform the Court of any points of fact or law known to it which favour the other side.   [...]  [T]he fact that a document is before the Court, given the volume of exhibits and the time which an ex parte judge has to deal with such matters, does not relieve the moving party of its duty to make full and fair disclosure.

Cassidy v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 174 - 2024-02-02

The principle that the individual or individuals affected by a decision should have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly underlies the duty of procedural fairness and is rooted in the right to be heard [...].   [...]  Subsections 222(3) and (4) of the Act impose limitation periods on the CRA’s collection of debts, but these provisions are found in the part of the Act that deals with Collections.

Guidara v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2022 FCA 122 - 2022-06-23

This provision authorizes the Board to extend the time limit set out in subsection 90(1) of the Regulations, among other things, “in the interest of fairness.”   [...]  However, he says very little about the Board’s decision, which is the only decision the Court must deal with in this application for judicial review.   [...]  with the rules in force and on the basis of the employer’s arguments alone.” He maintains that his ignorance of the grievance process and its deadlines as well as the Union’s failure to fulfill its duty of fair and equitable representation constitute strong, clear and compelling arguments for granting the extension sought.

Lou v. Canada - 2021 FC 372 - 2021-04-29

While it is clear that the Plaintiff’s Claim is rooted in her negative experiences in dealing with (among other) immigration consultants, financial institutions, insurers, schools, landlords and property managers as a result of which she claims to be in financial crisis, it is not clear what cause of action is being   [...]  [21] In Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227, the Federal Court of Appeal held at para 16 [Mancuso] that it is “fundamental to the trial process that a plaintiff plead material facts in sufficient detail to support the claim and relief sought.” Even though a pleading is to be given a fair and   [...]  Viewing the pleadings as a whole and considering all the circumstances, the Court must ensure that the issues are defined with sufficient precision to make the proceedings “manageable and fair” (see Mancuso v. Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 [Mancuso] at para. 19; Enercorp Sand Solutions Inc. v.

Alakozai v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2019 FC 550 - 2019-05-01

There are, however, exceptional circumstances to this general rule: (i) if the new evidence provides background information that would assist the Court; (ii) if the new evidence is relevant to address jurisdictional questions; (iii) or if the new evidence is introduced to support an alleged breach of procedural fairness   [...]  The Court also notes that the Applicant was given a fair procedure throughout the entire security screening process, considering he had the opportunity to respond to the Risk Investigator’s concerns (Koulatchenko at para 115).   [...]  Thus, the Applicant was unable to satisfy the RCMP that there was no reason to doubt his reliability or trustworthiness in dealing with sensitive information in the department.

Aboriginal Voices Radio Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2016 FCA 275 - 2016-11-10

[14] Moreover, the Commission was not required to deal more comprehensively with this submission because during the hearing Aboriginal Voices abandoned its request to be exempted from the Native Radio Policy.   [...]  [15] Next, Aboriginal Voices argues that the Commission failed to fairly and adequately consider the proposed business plan it presented.   [...]  [20] Aboriginal Voices also argues that the Commission breached its duty of procedural fairness by departing from Aboriginal Voices’ legitimate expectation that the Commission would follow its practice of graduated escalation of regulatory measures.

Twin v. Sawridge First Nation - 2016 FC 358 - 2016-03-30

It is further alleged that in carrying out his duties, he failed to observe the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.   [...]  [6] The Application for Judicial Review also alleges that parts of the Election Act (sections 16-21) dealing with the preparation of the electors list, “[fail] to comply with the law respecting elections in Canada pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867, Treaty 8, common law and the Constitution Act, 1982 [section 35] and

T.P. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 350 - 2015-03-19

[6] In principle, the appropriate standard of review for issues of procedural fairness is correctness (Khosa v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 SCR 339, at para 43; Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 SCR 708, at   [...]  Indeed, a breach of procedural fairness based on counsel’s incompetence is a serious allegation and the threshold for demonstrating incompetence is a high one.   [...]  However, here, it must be conceded that we are not, to paraphrase Parast, above, dealing with a breach, assuming there was any, so clear and unequivocal and so deplorable that the resulting injustice caused to the applicants is blatantly obvious.

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 377 - 2014-04-23

Outside observers declared the elections to be free and fair. An elected civilian government under Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif came to power with two-thirds of the Parliamentary majority.   [...]  [48] Although Pakistan had its problems, and there was a great deal of room for improvement, and although President Sharif’s government did not survive past October 1999, it does not negate the fact that, until then, the government in Pakistan had been democratically elected.   [...]  It considered the fact that Prime Minister Sharif was elected to lead a majority government in a vote which the International Community described as “free and fair”.

Colborne v. The Queen - 2012 TCC 198 - 2012-08-20

A person with whom the transferor was not dealing at arm's length. 4) The fair market value of the property transferred must exceed the fair market value of the consideration given by the transferee.

Rhéaume v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2012 FCA 138 - 2012-05-03

In the absence of a provision dealing with the time limit for the Federal Court of Appeal, the applicable time limit is that provided at article 2925 of the C.C.Q. [Civil Code of Québec].   [...]  2925. L’action qui tend à faire valoir un droit personnel ou un droit réel mobilier et dont le délai de prescription n’est pas autrement fixé se prescrit par trois ans.   [...]  As for the invoice from St-Joseph Digital Solutions, the appellant’s submissions are fair.