11,315 result(s)
-
6,276.
Ponce de Leon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1998-10-23
Federal Court DecisionsWhat is important for fairness is that the panel ensure the parties know that the anonymous letters were received and that they be disclosed to the parties. [...] The panel is entitled to deal with counsel of record. [4] The applicants say the panel should have recused itself because it read the letters.
-
6,277.
Dhesi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 1997-01-08
Federal Court DecisionsFaced with these obvious contradictions between the above oral answers and the documents referred to, there was a duty of fairness upon the Visa Officer to clarify the matter. [...] There is a duty upon a tribunal to deal with the totality of the evidence and to further explore obvious contradictions between the oral evidence of a witness, who may be nervous (although he may, as in this instance, have answered that he was not nervous) and previous information provided in writing under a solemn
-
6,278.
Cowessess First Nation No. 73 v. Pelletier - 2017 FC 692 - 2017-07-18
Federal Court DecisionsFirst, provisions dealing with who is entitled to notice of proceedings and to be heard may be considered an indication that those persons are “interested” in the proceedings. [...] That error went unnoticed, and could have been easily corrected with fair warning. [...] [46] I agree with Cowessess on the issue of procedural fairness for the following reasons.
-
6,279.
Sui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2016 FC 406 - 2016-04-14
Federal Court DecisionsThe RAD found that, while there was some evidence that the police sometimes act outside the law, there is no evidence (as asserted by the applicant) that they always do so when dealing with practitioners of Falun Gong. [...] There are some aspects of the RAD’s decision that the applicant argues should be reviewed on a standard of correctness because of an absence of procedural fairness, but I have found no error in these aspects. [...] [32] The RAD clearly took into account the applicant’s personal circumstances and was aware that the applicant had turned to Falun Gong in the first place as a way to deal with her pain.
-
6,280.
Bah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 693 - 2014-07-18
Federal Court Decisions[11] Rule 151 of the Rules deals specifically with cases where the documents for which one party claims confidentiality have not yet been filed in the Court file. [...] Rule 152 deals with the applicable terms and conditions and the parties’ obligations where material is declared confidential under rule 151. [...] (2) the salutary effects of the confidentiality order, including the effects on the right of civil litigants to a fair trial, outweigh its deleterious effects, including the effects on the right to free expression, which in this context includes the public interest in open and accessible court proceedings.
-
6,281.
Horvath v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 313 - 2014-04-01
Federal Court DecisionsThe applicant did not make any complaint about the discrimination she faced at work to her supervisors or to any governmental agency, charged with dealing with discrimination complaints. [...] [10] In reviewing these avenues and infrastructure, the RPD quoted extensively and, in my view, fairly from the national documentation package. [...] ▪ [I]t seems that most government departments have the capacity, or at least resources, to deal with complaints of discrimination in the place of employment” (Decision at para 26).
-
6,282.
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc. - 2011 FC 348 - 2011-03-21
Federal Court Decisions(d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action, (e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or [...] 4. The Court is in a position to properly deal with the stay motion. [...] In Muscutt, supra, Mr. Justice Sharpe was dealing with a case where Ontario assumed jurisdiction and not either a presence-based jurisdiction or a consent-based jurisdiction.
-
6,283.
Suncor Energy Inc. v. MMD Design and Consultancy Limited - 2008 FC 488 - 2008-04-17
Federal Court Decisions[19] In my view, the present case deals with who will become the owner of the patent which is ultimately issued by the Commissioner and the alleged misuse and misappropriation of confidential information. [...] Consequently, I am of the opinion that based on the facts of this case, this Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the relief requested in paragraph 1b of the claim. [...] [21] The decision in Love, above deals with a debate over whether the Commissioner should have decided to accept the assignment in question and as such, section 52 of the Act would apply so as to give this Court jurisdiction.
-
6,284.
GPEC International Ltd. v. Canadian Commercial Corporation - 2008 FC 414 - 2008-04-02
Federal Court DecisionsA Dispute Arbitration Board was also established to deal with disputes arising under the Project Contract, but its proceedings are not directly in issue in these proceedings. [...] Certain of GPEC’s claims were to be heard in Phase 1, along with CCC’s counterclaims to the extent necessary to resist GPEC’s Phase 1 claims, with Phase 2 to deal with the remaining claims and counterclaims. [...] ii) soit qu’elle n’a pas été dûment informée de la nomination d’un arbitre ou de la procédure arbitrale, ou qu’il lui a été impossible pour une autre raison de faire valoir ses droits;
-
6,285.
Jayasekara v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 238 - 2008-02-21
Federal Court DecisionsI adopt the reasoning of Justice Noël in Médina, supra, who was dealing with a similar case of an applicant sentenced to 60 months imprisonment and four months probation in the United States. [...] Convention accepted the fundamental rule of international law that the perpetrator of a political crime, even one of extreme seriousness, is entitled to elude the authorities of the State in which he committed his crime, the premise being that such a person would not be tried fairly in that State and would be persecuted. [...] 128. In short, in Chan the Court was dealing with a different situation and the comments it made on Article 1F(b) of the Convention must be read with caution, as the very wording of that article indicates that it applies to more than the cases covered by Canadian law in the three aforementioned sections.
-
6,286.
Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - 2007 FC 907 - 2007-09-12
Federal Court Decisions[2] This action as instituted January 2007 by the Plaintiffs Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. (Sanofi Canada) and Schering Corporation against Apotex Inc. as Defendant is a fairly straightforward patent infringement action. [...] The claim alleges that Apotex is dealing in ramipril in Canada without authorization and is infringing those claims of the ’206 patent. [...] [18] The standard of review to be observed by a Court in dealing with a Prothonotary’s Order varies having regard to whether the Order disposes of an issue vital to the case.
-
6,287.
Ameir v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 876 - 2005-06-20
Federal Court Decisions4. Did the Board breach the duty of fairness owed to the Applicant by using "boiler plate reasoning"? [...] There are other examples of the Board misapprehending the evidence which are material to certain findings of the Board which I will deal with more fully later in these reasons. [...] Since the errors are determinative it is unnecessary to deal with the other issues raised in the application.
-
6,288.
Pilotes du St-Laurent Central Inc. v. Laurentian Pilotage Authority - 2004 FC 1325 - 2004-10-01
Federal Court Decisions[4] Clauses 15.02 and 15.03 of Appendix A of the latter contract between the parties to the case at bar deal with pilotage fees. [...] 3 ° que la partie contre laquelle la sentence est invoquée n'a pas été dûment informée de la désignation d'un arbitre ou de la procédure arbitrale, ou qu'il lui a été impossible pour une autre raison de faire valoir ses moyens; [...] . . . . . [60] Accordingly, the award in issue in this case does not deal with a matter that by its nature falls outside the jurisdiction of the arbitrators.
-
6,289.
Finansbanken ASA v. GTS Katie (The) - 2002 FCT 73 - 2002-01-22
Federal Court DecisionsOf course, Third Ocean and Clipper already knew of the debts owed by Third Ocean to Clipper and knew that Clipper would hesitate to deal with Third Ocean a third time. [...] [13] Before dealing with the essence of the analysis, a preliminary point must be considered. [...] As a result, according to the Bank, Third Ocean did not have the right to deal with the ship's property without the Bank's consent.
-
6,290.
458093 Bc Ltd. v. Ryan (The) - 2001 FCT 823 - 2001-07-24
Federal Court DecisionsMr. Rekis' account of his dealings with Mr. Dietterle was provided in a straightforward manner, without hesitation or exaggeration. [...] He couldn't even remember whether a meeting took place with Mr. Rekis in Nanaimo, a fairly significant event which one would be expected to recall. [...] However, the issue was fully argued before me and I will deal with them briefly.
-
6,291.
Almecon Industries Ltd. v. Anchortek Ltd. - 2000-08-25
Federal Court Decisions[11] I will first deal with Anchortek"s proposed amendments. Anchortek seeks to amend its Counterclaim by adding, inter alia , the following allegations outlined in paragraphs 12 through 16 of its proposed Counterclaim: [...] [35] Turning to the question of relevance, the test for the purpose of discovery is whether the document may fairly lead to a train or inquiry which may directly or indirectly advance the case of one party or damage the case of the other party. [...] "...the public policy which underlies the exclusionary rule requires that that rule not operate to shield evidence of misrepresentation or of dishonest dealing."
-
6,292.
Carter-Wallace Inc. v. Wampole Canada Inc. - 2000-06-29
Federal Court DecisionsIn light of the fact that the issues before the Registrar were squarely within his expertise dealing with trade-marks, the decisions are entitled to a considerable degree of deference. [...] [17] A case cited by the respondent dealing with the purpose of a section 45 notice is [...] With respect to the issue of the name change, the respondent cites Kightley v. Registrar of Trade-marks (1982), 65 C.P.R. (2d) 36, being a case dealing with the same subject matter.
-
6,293.
Canada (Department of National Revenue), Re - 2000-02-09
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[6] The stated question deals solely with the statutory interpretation of some provisions of the Customs Act and of the Privacy Act. The parties have chosen to bring Charter issues separately in the companion case of Smith v. Attorney General of Canada, A-401-99 which involves a concrete dispute between a claimant and the [...] e) communication ą un organisme d'enquźte déterminé par rčglement et qui en fait la demande par écrit, en vue de faire respecter des lois fédérales ou provinciales ou pour la tenue d'enquźtes licites, pourvu que la demande précise les fins auxquelles les renseignements sont destinés et la nature des renseignements demandés; [...] We add in passing that subsection 108(1) of the Customs Act refers to "the purposes" of the Act when it deals with collection and does not do so when it deals with disclosure.
-
6,294.
Bakr v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 353 - 2024-03-01
Federal Court Decisions[10] In his memorandum, the Applicant had challenged both the reasonableness of the RAD decision and whether it was reached in a procedurally fair manner. [...] However, in the hearing, the Applicant dropped the argument on procedural fairness. [...] I will therefore only deal with these issues. [17] The Applicant has argued that the RAD reviewed the RPD decision on the correctness standard, which was an error.
-
6,295.
Sadr Nouri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 1536 - 2022-11-10
Federal Court Decisions[3] The Applicant argues that the RAD decision should be overturned because he was denied procedural fairness when the RAD made adverse credibility findings on new issues without giving him the opportunity to respond. [...] [17] The Applicant has raised a number of issues regarding the RAD decision, including that he was denied procedural fairness and the assessment of his claim was unreasonable and based on faulty reasoning that disregarded key evidence. [...] The point is emphasized by the use of the word “further” to introduce his religious objection; the plain reading of his narrative is that he is advancing two grounds here, yet the RAD only deals with the objection based on his religion.
-
6,296.
Molchanova v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 1305 - 2021-11-25
Federal Court DecisionsThe officer also reviewed the letters from her daughter’s friends but gave them modest weight because the friends had not spent a great deal of time with the Applicant and their support was based on friendships with the daughter. [...] Procedural fairness [25] As a corollary, the Applicant challenges the fairness of the officer’s process in reaching the negative Decision based in part on their reliance on the 1995 Citizenship Agreement.
-
6,297.
Goffe v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2021 FC 270 - 2021-03-26
Federal Court Decisions[7] As counsel for the Applicant fairly conceded, this Court upon judicial review cannot determine the disputed facts based on two affidavits that are equally credible, but divergent. [...] [18] Disciplinary hearings are inquisitorial proceedings, not adversarial ones: the Independent Chairperson has a duty to “conduct a full and fair inquiry or, in other words, examine both sides of the question” (Perron at para 52, citing Hendrickson v Kent Institution, [1990] FCJ No 19, 32 FTR 296 (FC TD) (“Hendrickson”) at [...] Not only does this approach go against the principles enumerated in Hendrickson and echoed throughout the jurisprudence, it allows CSC officers — individuals who possess a great deal of control over the lives of inmates — to operate with impunity.
-
6,298.
Bawazir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2019 FC 623 - 2019-05-08
Federal Court DecisionsSince 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 [...] In my view, a reasonable and fair-minded person would judge the requirement that he leave Canada and go to a war zone where a dire humanitarian crisis prevails so that he could apply for permanent residence as a misfortune potentially deserving of amelioration. [...] In my view, a reasonable and fair-minded person would not ignore the conditions prevailing in Yemen when deciding whether the applicant’s precarious situation in Canada is a misfortune deserving of amelioration.
-
6,299.
Semykin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2019 FC 496 - 2019-04-18
Federal Court Decisionsfailing to address the arguments raised on appeal, thereby breaching procedural fairness. [...] [12] Each of the issues will be assessed below; the first three under a standard of reasonableness (del Solar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 1145 at para 25), and the final procedural fairness issue under the correctness standard (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at [...] In any event, it is trite law that the RAD need not deal explicitly with every argument (Canada (Attorney General) v Franchi, 2011 FCA 136 at para 41).
-
6,300.
Sutlej Foods Inc. v. The Queen - 2019 TCC 20 - 2019-01-21
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsBut here we are dealing with statute law - subsection 17.1(1). A statutory provision, provided it is constitutional, should prevail over common law to the extent of any conflict inter se. [...] Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such, fair large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects. [...] How can blanket denial of any ability of a corporate appellant in a general procedure appeal to be represented by non-counsel be a, “fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of [subsection 17.1(1)’s] object”?