Advanced Search

Pauzé v. The Queen - 1998-06-23

(c) a person with whom he was not dealing at arm's length, the following rules apply:   [...]  (i) the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at the time it was transferred exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given for the property, and

Clarke v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1997-11-26

[6] The respondent submitted that the Court of Appeal in Williams, supra reviewed the process leading up to the formation of an opinion by the Minister that a person is a danger to the public in Canada and found that the procedure is fair and does not violate the Charter.   [...]  The Court of Appeal in Williams, reviewed the scheme of the Act and found it to be constitutionally sound and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness.   [...]  [8] In Williams, supra at page 11, Strayer J.A. deals with the standard of review of the Minister's opinion.

Era Electronics (Canada) Ltd. v. Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company Inc. - 1997-01-17

Items 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 26 are allowed as claimed since they represent, in the circumstances of this case, a fair and reasonable allocation of units.   [...]  The procedure before me deals exclusively with the settling of accounts not already assessed and, in doing so, I have no authorithy or jurisdiction whatsoever to confirm the assessments already made (something I would obviously be doing, albeit indirectly, if I were to include the two awards of Mr. Giles in my taxation).   [...]  Again the two orders of the Court stand on their own and are not to be confused with services which may fairly be said to fall within Item 27.

Contreras v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 1996-10-22

In my view I do not have to deal with the question of whether Board member Ariemma properly heard the case on its merits because there is a preliminary natural justice issue with respect to Mr. Ariemma's finding that the Appeal Division did not have jurisdiction in this matter.   [...]  The right to a fair hearing is an independent right. Ordinarily the denial of that right will void the hearing and the resulting decision.   [...]  While recognizing that natural justice or procedural fairness had been denied, the Supreme Court gave effect to Professor Wade's distinction by withholding a remedy because the outcome was "inevitable", in that the decision-maker "would be bound in law to reject the application" of the appellant therein.

Groupe Maison Candiac Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2018 FC 643 - 2018-06-22

(2) Le ministre compétent est tenu de faire la recommandation s’il estime que l’espèce est exposée à des menaces imminentes pour sa survie ou son rétablissement.   [...]  (3) Avant de faire la recommandation, il consulte tout autre ministre compétent.   [...]  He argued that the Emergency Order was made in violation of the rules of procedural fairness (Îlot St-Jacques, at paragraph 17).

Boskovic v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 841 - 2024-06-04

Did the SST-AD breach the duty of procedural fairness or the principles of natural justice?   [...]  [46] [I]t is likely that the Applicant will find this result frustrating, because my reasons do not deal with the fundamental legal, ethical, and factual questions he is raising.   [...]  D. Procedural Fairness [62] The Applicant submitted that there was a breach of procedural fairness.

Beyer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2009 FC 823 - 2009-08-12

However, this Court understands that it must show a great deal of judicial deference when examining such a decision.   [...]  I believe it is fair to assume that the requirements of “natural justice” are subsumed under the general category of “fairness”, particularly in respect of an administrative decision such as this.   [...]  It is beyond debate that the requirements of fairness depend on the seriousness of the decision being taken.

Redding v. MCI - 2001 FCT 933 - 2001-08-22

Dr. Waddell simply does not deal with her situation. (3) Did the medical officer err in carrying out a defective analysis of the expression "excessive demand"?   [...]  [17] It must be remembered however that the content of the duty of fairness is variable and contextual.   [...]  The ability to meaningfully participate in the decision-making process requires clear notice of the case to be met, a full and fair opportunity to present evidence and submissions relevant to that case, and full and fair consideration of that case by an impartial decision-maker.

Pason Systems Corp. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) - 2006 FC 753 - 2006-06-13

Clearly, this latter underlined "first" should read "second", since the clause is dealing with the "second relay" not the "first relay".   [...]  [32] The practice of the Commissioner in dealing with section 8 requests is set out in the Manual of Canadian Patent Office Procedure (MOPOP) section 23.04 and following.   [...]  The applicant and its agent owe a duty of candour to the Patent Office to make a full, fair and frank disclosure of all of the relevant circumstances.

Ahousaht First Nation v. Canada (Indian Affairs and Northern Development) - 2021 FCA 135 - 2021-07-09

The SCT went on at paragraph 49 to state that ordinary diligence “imposes a standard of conduct on the Crown in its dealings with a beneficiary, thus requiring adequate inquiry by the Crown into the affected beneficiary’s interests in land.”   [...]  Issues of procedural fairness are to be reviewed on a correctness standard.   [...]  They did not mention procedural fairness. If the Ahousaht had concerns about procedural fairness, they should have stated them explicitly when their other concerns were discussed.

Gitxaala Nation v. Canada - 2016 FCA 187 - 2016-06-23

The duties of consultation and, if required, accommodation form part of the process of reconciliation and fair dealing: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511, at paragraph 32.   [...]  [308] In our view, it was not consistent with the duty to consult and the obligation of fair dealing for Canada to simply assert the Project’s impact would be mitigated without first discussing the nature and extent of the rights that were to be impacted.   [...]  To do so is inconsistent with the principle of fair dealing and reconciliation.

Mursalim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 596 - 2018-06-07

Since the provision creates a mechanism to deal with exceptional circumstances and decisions under it are highly discretionary, decision-makers will be accorded a considerable degree of deference (Williams v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1303 at para 4; Legault v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and   [...]  This led the officer to ignore a key unifying element in this case – the fact that the applicant lost the opportunity to acquire status in Canada as an overseas dependent as a result of a denial of procedural fairness.   [...]  [39] The unfairness that potentially calls for the exercise of H&C discretion is the loss of the opportunity, through no fault on the applicant’s part, to have an arguable application for permanent residence as an overseas dependent decided fairly on the merits.

Seymour Stephens v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2013 FC 609 - 2013-06-06

That being said, the Board has an obligation to deal with a request for an adjournment in a principled way.   [...]  [42] Accordingly, it is incumbent upon the Applicant to show that he was denied a fair hearing as a consequence of the hearing proceeding in the absence of his counsel.   [...]  There are, in short, no indicia that the hearing was anything but thorough and fair.