11,315 result(s)
-
6,226.
216663 Ontario Ltd. v. The Queen - 1998-04-22
Tax Court of Canada Judgments(b) the corporation and persons with whom the corporation was not dealing at arm’s length did not, at the time the dividend was received, own in the aggregate more than 5% of the issued shares of any class of the capital stock of the corporation from which the dividend was received, [...] (ii) to reduce the fair market value of the common and Class A shares of Co. 908 by such removal of $4.9 million; [...] After the Class B shares were issued and redeemed, the fair market value of the common and Class A shares was only $100.
-
6,227.
Singh v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) - 2017 FC 266 - 2017-03-07
Federal Court DecisionsThe first is whether the Officer breached the duty of procedural fairness. [...] Issue 1: Did the Officer breach the duty of procedural fairness? Notice to the Applicant [...] [15] And, as noted by Justice Manson in Gedara v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 209 at para 29, visa officers are not obligated to convey concerns that arise from the requirements of the IRP Regulations or deal with sufficiency of evidence.
-
6,228.
Cedana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2016 FC 1217 - 2016-11-02
Federal Court DecisionsReasonableness involves deference to the tribunal, particularly where it is dealing with a case involving the tribunal’s particular expertise. [...] Accordingly, the ruling not to issue a summons to the employers was procedurally fair. [...] I can find no fault at all with how the ID handled this factor; it was imminently fair to Nelly.
-
6,229.
Ahmad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 646 - 2008-05-22
Federal Court DecisionsMatters of procedural fairness have been held to be reviewable on the standard of correctness. [...] [15] I deal in turn with each of the five errors the officer is said to have committed. [...] Was the duty of fairness breached by the conduct of the applicants' representative?
-
6,230.
Canadian Pharmaceutical Technologies International (C.P.T.) Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2006 FC 708 - 2006-06-07
Federal Court Decisions[18] For questions of procedural fairness, it is established that the reviewing Judge does not need to engage in a standard of review inquiry. [...] The Court determines the content of the duty of fairness as a question of law on the correctness standard. [...] Health Canada has acted in a reasonably expeditious fashion in dealing with this classification issue.
-
6,231.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Woods - 2002 FCT 928 - 2002-09-03
Federal Court Decisions(e) except as authorized under this Part, wilfully operate or otherwise deal with an aircraft that has been detained under this Part;(f) wilfully do any act or thing in respect of which a Canadian aviation document is required except under and in accordance with the required document; or [...] a) de faire sciemment une fausse déclaration pour obtenir un document d'aviation canadien ou tout avantage qu'il octroie; [...] c) de faire, ou faire faire, de fausses inscriptions dans les registres dont la tenue est exigée sous le régime de la présente partie, dans le dessein d'induire en erreur, ou d'omettre délibérément d'y faire une inscription;
-
6,232.
Matti v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1527 - 2023-11-17
Federal Court DecisionsThere are three exceptions, however: (1) the material assists the court to understand the general background circumstances of the judicial review; (2) the material is relevant to an issue of procedural fairness or natural justice; and (3) the material highlights a complete absence of evidence before the decision maker: [...] [15] Otherwise, the Respondent generally did not object to documents that were contained in the CTR, including the record of employment, certain excerpts from an article dealing with personal protective equipment, and a letter from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. [...] • 39–-: excerpt of article dealing with personal protective equipment; and
-
6,233.
Breen v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2021 FC 353 - 2021-04-22
Federal Court Decisions[3] The Commission decided not to deal with the 2019 Complaint for two reasons. [...] [16] While Mr. Breen may have pointed to other sections of the CHRA in the 2019 Complaint, it is fair to say that the factual allegations raised in the 2019 Complaint are the same as those raised in the 2004 Complaint, and this is the matter being addressed by the Officer when she writes: [...] [17] The real issue raised by Mr. Breen in this application is whether the decision of the Commission not to deal with the 2019 Complaint is reasonable.
-
6,234.
Totshingo v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) - 2017 FC 652 - 2017-07-05
Federal Court DecisionsThe dispute here, which specifically deals with the first stage of the sponsorship process, does not give rise to any collateral consequences; [...] It seems fair to apply such a provision even though, legally, the application for judicial review is dismissed by a motion under rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules. [...] [18] Supposing that the matter had been considered on the merits, Mr. Ekomodi Totshingo purportedly believed that there was a serious question of general importance that could have been stated, pursuant to section 74 of the Act. As I understand it, the applicant wanted the question to deal with the discretion of an
-
6,235.
Watson v. Canada - 2017 FC 322 - 2017-03-28
Federal Court DecisionsFor the above reasons, I conclude that the Crown is entitled to have its motion heard before dealing with the Plaintiffs’ motion to amend. [...] The purpose of weighing these factors is to ensure fairness and justice. [...] It may even be argued that the conduct of Indian Agent McDonald and Surveyor Nelson may appear as a form of sharp dealing.
-
6,236.
Richard v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2016 FC 1420 - 2016-12-30
Federal Court DecisionsThe interests have to be “well identified and defined” and they must be examined “with a great deal of attention” in light of all the evidence. [...] Those interests must be “well identified and defined” and examined “with a great deal of attention” in light of all the evidence: Legault v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 4 F.C. 358 (C.A.), at paras. 12 and 31; Kolosovs v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 323 F.T.R. 181, at paras. [...] In special circumstances, where there is evidence before an officer that the best interests of the children are dramatically affected, as well as evidence before the officer that their interests are not being adequately advanced, in those special circumstances, does the officer have a heightened duty of fairness to inquire
-
6,237.
Bell Canada v. 7262591 Canada Ltd. (Gusto TV) - 2016 FCA 123 - 2016-04-20
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[13] Some administrative decision-makers deal with discrete matters that are unrelated to other matters. [...] For example, a Law Society discipline tribunal usually deals with lawyers charged with specific professional offences at a specific time. [...] In making decisions, these administrative decision-makers will focus on evidence placed before them in the specific matter but, subject to any obligations of procedural fairness and disclosure owed to the particular parties before them, they may go further and draw upon broader industrial, economic, regulatory or
-
6,238.
Mosly v. The Queen - 2015 TCC 136 - 2015-06-04
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsI will deal first with 1999 and then deal with 2003 and 2004 together. [...] I think it is fair to assume that Mr. Hilario had his own best interests in mind when the T5018 slips were issued.
-
6,239.
Olumide v. The Queen - 2015 TCC 125 - 2015-05-19
Tax Court of Canada Judgments7. Fairness Provisions for Excise Tax Act 8. Remissions Order 9. No Fault Settlement [...] [4] It is clear that this part of the application cannot succeed because this Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with this matter. [...] It is not necessary that I deal with the respondent’s alternative submission regarding the subpoenas.
-
6,240.
Albert v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2013 FC 351 - 2013-04-08
Federal Court Decisions[7] Sections 33 and 34 of the IRPA, which deal with inadmissibility, provide the following: [...] [10] Therefore, the applicant wrongly relied on case law dealing with complicity in the context of section 98 de la IRPA and on the statement that the applicant was not personally involved in terrorist acts committed by the SSNP; these concepts are completely irrelevant with respect to inadmissibility under paragraph 34(1) [...] The issue here is whether the term as used in the Immigration Act is sufficiently certain to be workable, fair and constitutional.
-
6,241.
Musa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 298 - 2012-03-08
Federal Court DecisionsThey also create rights for members of the public in Canada who deal with institutions of the Government of Canada to conduct those dealings, with certain limitations, in the official language of their choice and to receive communications from those institutions in the language of their choice. [...] 72 On the basis of this evidence, the Court finds that Henry Sztern had sufficient knowledge of French to file his application for judicial review pursuant to subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S., 1985, c. F-7 and there has not been a breach of procedural fairness.
-
6,242.
Bolanos Blanco v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2010 FC 280 - 2010-03-10
Federal Court DecisionsBe that as it may, any breach of the rules of procedural fairness was corrected by the panel’s subsequent decision to change the language of proceedings to French, which was the basis of the Agency’s challenge in the correspondence in question. [...] [22] With regard to equivalences, the panel considered first the applicability of section 462.31 of the Code, which deals with money laundering, and second, section 380 of the Code, which deals with fraud.
-
6,243.
McCracken v. Canada - 2009 FC 1189 - 2009-11-19
Federal Court Decisions[1] This application deals with a judicial review of a decision made by the Canada Revenue Agency dated January 13, 2009 wherein it was determined that the Applicant Craig McCracken did not qualify for interest and penalty relief under the Voluntary Disclosures Program administrated by that Agency. [...] In reviewing the actions of the VDP Officer and Team Leaders, it is clear that they did exercise their discretion to grant a 60 day extension to the normal 90 day maximum and that this extension and the ramifications of not meeting the dealing were clearly communicated to yourself. [...] The second level decision was fairly made on the basis of the evidence and arguments submitted.
-
6,244.
Salman v. M.N.R. - 2009 TCC 201 - 2008-11-25
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsThe four guidelines are the payer's control over the worker; whether the worker or the payer owns the tools that are acquired to fulfill the worker's function; the worker's chance of profit; and the worker's risk of loss in his or her dealings with the payer. [...] The jurisprudence says that when you are dealing with non-standard expert workers, whose supervisor does not have the expertise to tell them how to do a job, it suffices if they have the power to tell them what job to do. [...] But while not being obligated on the facts before me to delve into the issue of intent, in fairness to the appellant, and in the interest of the appellant understanding why I have decided as I have, I would like to address three different points with reference to intention.
-
6,245.
Altana Pharma Inc. v. Novopharm Limited - 2007 FC 1183 - 2007-11-14
Federal Court DecisionsNonetheless, the Court will deal with it to avoid any further dispute in this respect. [...] However, a fair reading of her order indicates that she clearly considered the relevance, admissibility and usefulness of the evidence as such. [...] [21] It is also worth noting that the Mapei test is meant to be easier to meet then the four-pronged test of Hennelly, because the party seeking the extension does not have, in theory, to deal with the lack of prejudice and the overall merits of its application (Strykiwsky v. Stony Mountain Institution, 2000 F.C.J. No. 1404
-
6,246.
Canada v. Société des Acadiens et des Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. - 2006 FCA 196 - 2006-05-25
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsThe public exercises this right when dealing either with the head or central office of a federal institution, or with any office of that institution, where there is a significant demand or where the nature of the office so warrants. [...] [41] The case law dealing with the issue of delegating certain obligations to third parties, such as Canada (Commissioner of Official Languages) v. Canada (Department of Justice), [2001] F.C.J. No. 431, simply recognizes that the one owing constitutional obligations cannot dispose of them by delegating them to others. [...] [47] Considering the circumstances of this matter, it would be fair that each party assume their costs.
-
6,247.
Flood v. The Queen - 2006 TCC 186 - 2006-03-29
Tax Court of Canada Judgments8. Commencing January 31, 2001, Charles M. Rotenberg through correspondence, telephone calls and meetings communicated with CCRA on the basis that the tax issue was not one of tax evasion, but one of Fair Market Value (FMV) of the real property to be dealt with as a civil matter by establishing a FMV for the real property [...] I talked to Mr. O'Neill, and he advised the estate had been prosecuted and he had dealings with Mr. Rotenberg in this regard." [...] I talked to Mr. O'Neill, and he advised the estate had been prosecuted and he had dealings with Mr. Rotenberg in this regard."
-
6,248.
Abbott Laboratories v. Canada (Health) - 2006 FC 76 - 2006-01-25
Federal Court DecisionsHe states that Dr. Rhodes not only participated in discussions concerning the matters in issue in that particular proceeding, but was also privy to confidential discussions regarding a whole host of issues surrounding clarithromycin, including confidential legal strategy to deal with the issues of claim construction, [...] Further, in considering whether leave should be granted, the Court must consider the overall fairness of the request made by the moving party and whatever objections are raised by a responding party. [...] In the United States, where Dr. Rhodes' involvement with Abbott was over a longer period of time, there were discussions regarding Abbott's legal strategy dealing with claim construction, infringement and invalidity, including Abbott's potential defences to whether the U.S. clarithromycin patents were "obvious".
-
6,249.
Spinazola v. M.N.R. - 2005 TCC 457 - 2005-11-10
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsHere there is not a great deal of conflict, except on one particular issue and that is what the Appellant was told by one of the officers of the company, when in November of the year in issue Mr. Spinazola contacted him with respect to obtaining work. [...] He had a great deal of control over himself there as well. He even had to pay a service charge to the payor if he accepted cheques from the customers which turned out to be bad. [...] [30] With respect to control, the Appellant said that there was a fair amount of control by the employer but the Court is satisfied that there was very little control by the employer over him and it does not agree with the Appellant on that matter.
-
6,250.
Pearce v. The Queen - 2005 TCC 38 - 2005-01-17
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsHe testified that while he had administered a criminal caution to Mr. Pearce at the July 1999 meeting in relation to the possibility of prosecution for tax evasion for having failed to report income, at no time in any of his dealings with Mr. Pearce did he threaten him with imprisonment to get his signature on the Waiver. [...] He had, over the years, numerous dealings and experience with a range of government agencies and departments, including CRA. At the hearing, he presented himself as one unlikely to shrink from asserting his rights or expressing his views. [...] [1] s.165(1.2) Determination of fair market value. Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (1.1), no objection may be made by a taxpayer to an assessment made under subsection 118.1(1.1), 152(4.2), 169(3) or 220(3.1) nor, for greater certainty, in respect of an issue for which the right of objection has been waived in writing