11,309 result(s)
-
576.
Garnhum v. Deputy Canada (Attorney General) - 1996-10-02
Federal Court Decisions(b) the Commission failed to observe a principle of natural justice or procedural fairness in reaching its decision; [...] Given that the Commission has decided to deal with the complaint in accordance with section 41 of the Act: [...] Its enabling statute provides it with a great deal of control over its own processes.
-
577.
McCarthy v. M.N.R. - 1999-10-19
Tax Court of Canada Judgments... (c) subject to paragraph (d), employment where the employer and employee are not dealing with each other at arm's length and, for the purposes of this paragraph, [...] The Minister's obligation to afford procedural fairness to the Appellants,[3] or applicants as they were at that time, was breached, and the decision therefore cannot stand.[4] [...] The exact components of the right to procedural fairness vary with the circumstances of the case.
-
578.
Allan v. The Queen - 2013 TCC 65 - 2013-02-15
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[3] The evidence not in dispute is that the Appellant managed the escort business carried on mainly in Toronto by two corporations; namely Nu-Deal Holdings Inc.(“Nu-Deal”) and D.J.A. Holdings Inc (“DJA”) (together the “Corporations”); which were jointly owned by the Appellant and his brother in 2001 until the Appellant sold [...] Fairness Arguments [35] I should like to address the other basis for relief sought by the Appellant as expressed in his Notice of Appeal and in argument for fairness and justice in light of the hardships the Appellant has had to endure from the loss of employment and in respect to the processes involving the criminal [...] This Court is empowered pursuant to section 171 of the Act to deal with the assessment only and not the conduct of the CRA or questions of fairness outside the scope of the Act. This Court cannot grant the equitable relief sought by the Appellant as it has no jurisdiction to ignore its findings relevant to the assessment
-
579.
Terasen International Inc. v. The Queen - 2012 TCC 408 - 2012-10-01
Tax Court of Canada Judgments7. Finally, I would note the following: One of the appeals deals with Part 1 assessments whereas the other deals with Part 13 assessments. [...] 16. It is not disputed that BVICo and the Appellant did not deal with each other at arm's length. [...] basis of the assessment and took the position that the Appellant had to prove the fair market value that it used even though the Minister made no assumption with respect to fair market value and it had simply pleaded that it had no knowledge of the Appellant's assertions in its pleading of fair market value of the shares.
-
580.
AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Limited - 2009 FC 902 - 2009-09-11
Federal Court Decisions• [4] Before dealing with the merits of the motion as it relates to the filing of reply evidence it is helpful to put this motion in context.In its submissions on the motion for reversal of evidence AstraZeneca made the following submissions: [...] Accordingly reversal of the order of evidence will result in the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the merits without affecting Novopharm’s substantive rights and maintaining the fairness of Novopharm’s procedural rights. [...] • [28] Dealing with the Romero affidavit, AstraZeneca made much of the fact that Dr. Romero knew that her opinions should be “thorough and complete” as she acknowledged on her cross-examination.Because Dr. Romero did not deal with certain issues in her affidavit in chief AstraZeneca says that the reply affidavit, in large
-
581.
Ahmad v. Canada (Revenue Agency) - 2011 FC 954 - 2011-07-28
Federal Court Decisions(c) Was the Applicants’ right to procedural fairness breached during Decision Review? [...] The competencies were not marked in a fair, consistent and objective manner. [...] This suggests that the CRA intends to deal with issues with standardized assessment tools, but outside of the Decision Review process.
-
582.
Timm v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2011 FC 576 - 2011-05-19
Federal Court Decisions[5] The applicant first contended that the third‑level decision breached the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness to the extent that the Senior Deputy Commissioner rendered one decision to deal with both of his grievances. [...] Doing so did not breach any of the principles of natural justice or procedural fairness. [...] Consequently, once again, I see no breach of procedural fairness or the principles of natural justice.
-
583.
Hughes v. The Queen - 2017 TCC 95 - 2017-01-20
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsOne would have expected the Appellant to start quite early the process of dealing with his accountant. [...] This is particularly true since he knew he would have to deal with the gain on the sale of the U.S. property. [...] It is unnecessary to deal with that question in this case. [12] 2008 SCC 47.
-
584.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Seifert - 2002 FCT 859 - 2002-08-13
Federal Court DecisionsUnfortunately, the Plaintiff's amended argument deals only with the first aspect. [...] The duty to act fairly includes the duty to provide procedural fairness to the parties. [...] To be fair, the Defendant does raise breach of fiduciary duty and a failure to act fairly and impartially.
-
585.
Hale v. Canada - 1996-05-23
Federal Court DecisionsCounsel for the applicant argues that a breach of the duty of fairness occurred. [...] The procedure for dealing with a classification grievance is established by Treasury Board and is set out in the Manual. [...] Nor does he argue that the Treasury Board does not have authority to establish rules of procedure for dealing with grievances.
-
586.
Shoan v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2016 FC 1003 - 2016-09-02
Federal Court Decisions3. Did the Investigation offend principles of procedural fairness and natural justice? [...] 3. Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice [33] Commissioner Shoan submits that he was denied procedural fairness and natural justice because: [...] In my view, Commissioner Shoan was denied procedural fairness and natural justice.
-
587.
Jolivet v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2010 FC 762 - 2010-07-20
Federal Court Decisions[13] The Respondent submits that some of the provisions of the CCRA on which the Applicant relies, which deal with institutional placement and transfers, are irrelevant in this case. [...] The statutory duty to act fairly is also not at issue, because it deals with the manner in which decisions affecting inmates are taken and “does not require that all offenders be treated exactly the same.” Finally, the fact that Parliament has created certain security classifications did not prevent the Warden from taking [...] Similarly, the Bulletins deal with the placement and transfer of inmates in various medium-security penitentiaries.
-
588.
Agnaou v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2015 FCA 30 - 2015-02-02
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions(1) Procedural fairness [37] First, the appellant claims that the judge erred when he concluded that procedural fairness had not been breached. [...] This aspect of the facts has already been deal with in other forums”. [...] The English version is just as clear, as it reads: “The Commissioner may refuse to deal”.
-
589.
Gadwa v. Kehewin First Nation - 2016 FC 597 - 2016-05-31
Federal Court Decisions[26] ...The jurisprudence of the Court is clear; such issues dealing with procedural fairness must be raised at the earliest opportunity. [...] As noted above, an elections officer’s authority to deal with appeals is set out in broad terms in Section XIV of the KCN Custom Election Act, she is authorized to do whatever is reasonably necessary “to answer the appeal”. [...] [94] As to Gordon Gadwa’s removal from his position as a Councillor, Section X of the KCN Custom Election Act provides a process for dealing with accusations of misconduct for sitting Councillors.
-
590.
Layden v. Canada (Human Resources and Social Development) - 2008 FC 619 - 2008-05-16
Federal Court Decisions[11] Subsection 83(2.1) of the Canada Pension Plan allows the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Board to designate a member of the Board to deal with a leave application. [...] [21] The vast majority of decisions from this Court dealing with decisions made with respect to applications for leave to appeal from decisions of the Review Tribunal involve cases where leave was denied. [...] [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.
-
591.
Qureshi v. The Queen - 2006 TCC 485 - 2006-09-07
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsOne must bring to bear many factors in determining what sort of a deal would be struck between arm’s length parties. [...] Cost or replacement cost do not indicate fmv where we are dealing with a home that is being constructed to a homeowner’s specifications. [...] These definitions are equally applicable to "fair market value" and "market value" and it is doubtful if the use of the word "fair" adds anything to the words "market value".
-
592.
Oliveira v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2002 FCT 1283 - 2002-12-11
Federal Court DecisionsIt was a standard form letter sent in medical inadmissibility cases known as a "fairness letter". [...] 4. Procedural fairness (a) The requirement for procedural fairness is met when a "fairness letter" (typically it is accompanied by the Medical Notification) is sent to the applicant, see Khan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 2 F.C. 413, 2001 FCA 345. [...] Procedural Fairness [19] Counsel for the applicant submits the applicant's right to procedural fairness was violated because the fairness letter did not contain any of the medical information on which the medical officer's conclusion was based.
-
593.
Specialty Manufacturing Ltd. v. Canada - 1999-05-18
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions(a) related persons shall be deemed not to deal with each other at arm's length; and [...] (b) it is a question of fact whether persons not related to each other were at a particular time dealing with each other at arm's length. [...] [9] The Appellant is a corporation in the business of distributing novelties and souvenirs at expositions, carnivals and fairs.
-
594.
Malikaimu v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) - 2017 FC 1026 - 2017-11-09
Federal Court DecisionsThe Respondent also suggested that the matter be referred to a judge of this Court designated to deal with national security issues. [...] The Motion Judge held that the Respondent had failed to identify “any matter that should have been dealt with that I overlooked or accidentally omitted to deal with.” The Motion Judge added that the Respondent would have the opportunity to address its relevancy arguments “at the hearing of the Application.” [...] The approach to procedural fairness remains, as stated in Baker, context-specific (Baker, at para 21; Charkaoui, at para 57).
-
595.
Gardner v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2004 FC 493 - 2004-04-02
Federal Court DecisionsAfter examining this information, the Commission decided, pursuant to subsection 41(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, to deal with the complaint because: [...] ... ... 41. (1) Subject to section 40, the Commission shall deal with any complaint filed with it unless in respect of that complaint it appears to the Commission that [...] In Yassine v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)[5], Justice Stone, for the Court, in the context of an examination of whether a fair hearing had been provided in circumstances where a fair hearing had been found to be an applicable aspect of the duty of fairness, wrote at paragraph [9] of his reasons:
-
596.
Gnanaseharan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2004 FC 872 - 2004-06-17
Federal Court DecisionsI now deal with both applications in turn, beginning with the PRRA decision. [...] I will deal with each of these alleged breaches of fairness in turn. (1) Clarify issues [...] [46] I will deal in turn with each of the above issues raised by the applicants.
-
597.
Agnaou v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FC 338 - 2017-03-31
Federal Court Decisions[39] Both parties agree that the standard of reasonableness applies to the review of the merits of the Commissioner’s decision, while the standard of correctness applies to any issue of procedural fairness the applicant has raised in this case. [...] After carefully weighing the issues of procedural fairness and natural justice, I have concluded that the need for flexibility and a response to the developments in this case prevail over the finality of the decision made on November 9, 2015. [...] It is undeniable that the applicant has put a great deal of time and energy into this case.
-
598.
Bremsak v. Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada - 2014 FCA 11 - 2014-01-21
Federal Court of Appeal Decisionsa) Procedural fairness [11] Counsel for the applicant specifically advanced four reasons supporting his client’s view that she was denied procedural fairness. [...] Procedural fairness is a cornerstone of modern Canadian administrative law. [...] It added that “the model adopted by the Institute for dealing with discipline in this case had sufficient procedural fairness to provide for a determination of the dispute on its merits” (ibidem at paragraph 464): Ms. Bremsak had been provided with the appropriate procedure; she knew ''the case against her and was given
-
599.
Roopnauth v. Canada (National Revenue) - 2016 FC 1307 - 2016-11-25
Federal Court Decisions[6] There is a tier system among employees occupying the SP0465 position, such that a tier 1 employee deals with simple inquiries, a tier 2 employee responds to some complex matters, a benefits employee deals with benefit-related inquiries, and, finally, certain employees are responsible for the CoE and non-resident tax [...] 2. Was the Applicant denied procedural fairness in respect of the decision to deny her grievance? [...] [25] The common law duty of procedural fairness has been codified in the Procedures.
-
600.
Qazi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2000-07-26
Federal Court DecisionsWe are concerned here with process and even if both those reports were as was strongly argued to me by counsel for the respondent as fair, balanced and impartial as they could be, that would not meet the requirement of fairness. [...] There was also a good deal of debate about the standard of review, since I am not reviewing the decision on its merits, I do not propose to enter into that. [...] Finally, of course, there was a good deal of debate as to the reasonableness or otherwise of the decision and that too is, in my view, irrelevant for the reason just stated.