11,315 result(s)
-
7,226.
Saha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2003 FC 872 - 2003-07-14
Federal Court Decisions(2) Did the Board provide a fair hearing to the applicant? Standard of Review [...] He further alleged that the officer exceeded his powers in certain questions he asked the applicant dealing with the basis of the claim to refugee status pursuant to s. 12 of the Immigration Act. [...] (2) Did the Board provide a fair hearing to the applicant? [34] The applicant raises a number of challenges under the rubric "fair hearing": (i) failure to hear all the evidence; (ii) failure to consider the documentary evidence; and (iii) reliance on evidence obtained through improper interview of a child.
-
7,227.
Pitney Bowes of Canada Ltd. v. Canada - 2003 FCT 214 - 2003-02-24
Federal Court DecisionsIn the case at bar, the parties were trying to achieve a fairly large commercial transaction. [...] Indeed, the solicitors may represent more than one party to the deal. [...] a) d'une part, faire un colis du document ainsi que de tout autre document pour lequel il invoque, en même temps, le même privilège au nom du même client, bien sceller ce colis et bien le marquer, ou, si le fonctionnaire et l'avocat en conviennent, faire en sorte que les pages du document soient paraphées et numérotées ou
-
7,228.
Larose v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2002 FCT 1106 - 2002-10-22
Federal Court Decisions5(2) La sélection au mérite visée au paragraphe 10(2) de la Loi peut se faire dans l'une ou l'autre des circonstances suivantes : [...] aux critères fixés en vertu du paragraphe 13(1) peut, dans le délai fixé par règlement de la Commission, en appeler de la nomination devant un comité chargé par elle de faire une enquête, au cours de laquelle l'appelant et l'administrateur général en cause, ou leurs représentants, ont l'occasion de se faire entendre. [...] [48] For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal board did not have the necessary jurisdiction to deal with the validity of the decision made by a reclassification officer to reclassify the positions at issue pursuant to s. 11(2)(c) of the Financial Administration Act, supra.
-
7,229.
Khorasani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2002 FCT 936 - 2002-09-04
Federal Court Decisions15. I will deal with each of these issues in turn. (1) Independent consideration of the female applicant's claims. [...] I conclude that the Panel did not err in joining the two refugee claims and I am satisfied that the female applicant's claim was fully and fairly heard. [...] (i) That the Panel erred and failed to observe procedural fairness when it criticized the male applicant for not mentioning past persecution his family faced in Iran when he was still a child, and attached considerable weight to this;
-
7,230.
Maricic v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2002 FCT 510 - 2002-05-03
Federal Court DecisionsCounsel therefore argues that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Singh v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] 17 D.L.R. (4th) 422 indicates that the duty of fairness owed to the applicant at the interview stage is more extensive than was previously thought. [...] In Dao, Ngoc Quy v. M.E.I., a colleague on the Appeal Division, dealing with submissions similar to those made by the appellant, concluded that they do, simply by virtue of their existence. [...] Under the circumstances of the present case, therefore, I am of the view that fairness did not require that the applicant be advised of the nature and effect of the secondary examination.
-
7,231.
Rodriguez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2002 FCT 292 - 2002-03-20
Federal Court Decisions3. Did the Board breach its duty to act fairly toward the applicant? [...] Duty to Act Fairly 45 The Supreme Court has quite recently held that the duty to act fairly has two components: the right to be heard and the right to an impartial hearing (Therrien (Re), [2001] S.C.J. No. 36 cited in Arthur v. Canada (Attorney General), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1091, at para. 6 (F.C.A.). [...] The case does not deal with the applicant's deportation and I will refer the applicant to the decision of Teitelbaum J. in Cruz v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1266 (T.D.), where it was stated:
-
7,232.
Sheldon Blank & Gateway Industries Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of the Environment) - 2001 FCA 374 - 2001-12-03
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions4. (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi mais nonobstant toute autre loi fédérale, ont droit à l'accès aux documents relevant d'une institution fédérale et peuvent se les faire communiquer sur demande_: [...] c) contenant des renseignements dont la divulgation risquerait vraisemblablement de nuire aux activités destinées à faire respecter les lois fédérales ou provinciales ou au déroulement d'enquêtes licites, notamment_: [...] It is convenient to deal with three of them on a preliminary basis: (1) the treatment of documents incorporated by reference into requested records, (2) the extent to which Stinchcombe is relevant, and (3) whether the severance rule in section 25 applies to records for which an exemption is claimed under section 23
-
7,233.
Orgona v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2001 FCT 346 - 2001-04-18
Federal Court Decisions[22] In Baker v. M.C.I., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, the Supreme Court of Canada reiterated the variable nature of the concept of procedural fairness. [...] The decision of Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé, speaking for the Court, determined that considering in all of the circumstances whether the person whose interests were affected had a meaningful opportunity to present their case fully and fairly did not depend upon whether an oral hearing was provided. [...] I am not persuaded that an oral hearing was essential to provide a fair opportunity for the applicant to deal with information received by the tribunal after the hearing and then disclosed to the applicant, who was given three weeks to respond in writing.
-
7,234.
Blue Line Car Leasing Ltd. v. Halifax International Airport - 2001 FCT 296 - 2001-04-06
Federal Court Decisions[19] The primary issue for consideration is the standard of review to be applied in dealing with the application for review of the decision to require an owner to pass a knowledge examination. [...] [30] It is urged by the applicants that the Airport Manager failed to treat the applications for licences fairly by fettering her discretion and slavishly following a rule or guideline that prevented individual merits of the application from being considered. [...] The application of that requirement in this case to the application on behalf of the corporate applicant did not raise issues of procedural fairness, fettering of discretion, or discrimination against the individual applicant, Mr. Mastrapas, that would warrant intervention by the Court.
-
7,235.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Girouard - 2001 FCT 83 - 2001-02-15
Federal Court Decisions(3) ... la Commission ne peut faire intervenir de distinctions fondées ... sur l'état de personne ... graciée ou la déficience. [...] ; (2) Was the extra time fair to the other candidates?; (3) Would Girouard's disability mean more time was needed by her? [...] Nor did it deal with whether such accommodation was fair with respect to the other candidates involved in the job competition.
-
7,236.
Rosenfeldt v. The Queen - 1999-12-10
Tax Court of Canada Judgmentsii) the Fair Market Value of the cattle slaughtered was estimated to be $1,000; [...] iv) the Appellant did not report into income the fair market value of the cattle slaughtered; [...] (3) Repairs – Once again, it was the responsibility of the Appellant to deal with the repair invoices and refute the assumptions in detail.
-
7,237.
Brothers v. Canada (Attorney General) - 1999-11-12
Federal Court DecisionsThe reservation centered upon an inability to conclude that candidates in the competition could be seen as having been fairly and consistently evaluated and ranked on this crucial facet of assessments through the vehicle selected and the way it was applied. [...] It is difficult to find that all candidates can be seen as having been fairly and consistently assessed given that there were six (6) different persons, comprising a total of some eight (8) different three-person team carrying out the application of the simulation under scrutiny. [...] The Appeal Board states that it does not challenge the ranking per se but the overall procedure, yet it concludes that the candidate could not have been fairly and consistently assessed.
-
7,238.
Annacis Auto Terminals (1997) Ltd. v. Cali (Ship) - 1999-09-07
Federal Court DecisionsAn impecunious owner and a ship that cannot be moved off the berth in a timely manner by reason of factors that become apparent fairly late in the day are unfortunate occurrences, but they are also a fact and a risk of doing business, and may be addressed through a proceeding in rem by a berth owner. [...] The present motion, although seeking a fairly similar remedy as in the previous motion, is grounded differently, there being a new matter thereby rendering a previous order inapt or even unjust. [...] Unfortunately, I do not find those submissions to be convincing and therefore do not deal with them.
-
7,239.
Jumatate v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1999-06-03
Federal Court Decisions[24] The officer acting in an administrative capacity has a duty of fairness, which duty includes the obligation to consider all of the evidence. [...] In making his decision before that information was presented, the officer had committed a breach of the duty of fairness. [...] In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the visa officer failed to observe a principle of natural justice or procedural fairness or erred in law by not seeking additional information.
-
7,240.
Rutayisire v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 970 - 2021-09-21
Federal Court DecisionsI do not believe that this evidence compelled the officer to decide differently than she did, nor that she necessarily had to deal with it in the reasoning. [...] I turn now to his submissions on procedural fairness. VI. Procedural Fairness [...] The officer sent two additional procedural fairness letters dated November 21, 2017 and July 30, 2018.
-
7,241.
Mannings v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2020 FC 823 - 2020-08-12
Federal Court Decisions[5] With respect to the referral arising from paragraph 37(1)(b), there was no breach of procedural fairness. [...] The Officer added that when asked why he pled guilty, Mr. Mannings indicated that his lawyer arranged a deal. [...] VII. The Officer and Minister’s Delegate did not breach the duty of procedural fairness owed in the circumstances
-
7,242.
CUPE v. Air Canada - 2010 FC 245 - 2010-03-03
Federal Court DecisionsNo deference is to be afforded in reviewing questions of procedural fairness. [...] [32] Issue 4 involves a review of procedural fairness. In accordance with Dunsmuir above, questions of procedural fairness must be decided on a standard of correctness. [...] [45] Because of my finding on Issue 2, I need not deal with the remaining issues.
-
7,243.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Coscia - 2005 FCA 132 - 2005-04-14
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsIt was large scale drug dealing. It was large scale money laundering. [...] [39] Phelan J. came to the correct conclusion when he held that the respondent was denied procedural fairness. [...] [51] If, as Noël J.A. finds, the question in dispute is one of procedural fairness, the standard of review is correctness.
-
7,244.
Arvan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 223 - 2024-02-09
Federal Court DecisionsThe reviewing court must adopt an attitude of restraint and intervene “only where it is truly necessary to do so in order to safeguard the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative process” (Vavilov at para 13), without “reweighing and reassessing the evidence” before it (Vavilov at para 125). [...] [21] It is also true that, when an administrative decision maker does not properly deal with evidence squarely contradicting its findings of fact, the Court may intervene and infer that the decision maker overlooked the contradictory evidence when reaching its conclusion (Ozdemir v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and [...] The Officer instead adopted a calibrated approach, balancing the various factors at stake in assessing the best interests of Ms. Arvan’s child, both in the section of the Decision dealing specifically with the best interests of the child and in his conclusion.
-
7,245.
Yumba v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2023 FC 1762 - 2023-12-28
Federal Court Decisions[4] During the hearing for this application, Mr. Yumba abandoned another argument that was raised in his memorandum, the one related to an alleged violation of the principles of procedural fairness. [...] The Court will not deal with this argument because Mr. Yumba decided to abandon it. [...] The Minister’s Delegate does not have discretion regarding humanitarian and compassionate considerations when dealing with an inadmissible foreign national (Rosenberry v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 882 at paras 36–38).
-
7,246.
Rozgonyi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 349 - 2022-03-15
Federal Court Decisionsthat an H&C decision will be unreasonable if the BIOC is not sufficiently considered, and that the children’s interests “must be ‘well identified and defined’ and examined ‘with a great deal of attention’ in light of all the evidence”: Kanthasamy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 at para 39. [...] Even in the separate section of the submission letter dealing with education, there is no reference to the concerns about restarting primary school or facing stigmatization. [...] [29] Finally, the family criticizes the officer’s reference to their work without legal authorization and their comment that “this does not weigh in their favour.” They point to Fidel Baeza, in which Justice O’Reilly concluded that “[i]t would not be fair to use evidence of steady employment against [the applicants] simply
-
7,247.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Munoz Pena - 2020 FC 719 - 2020-06-23
Federal Court Decisions[17] It should also be noted that the tests deal with different time periods: the primary purpose test requires an examination of the intentions of each spouse when the marriage took place (“was entered into . . . for the purpose of”, Regulations, paragraph 4(1)(a)), while the genuineness of the relationship must be [...] [24] In this case, it is fairly obvious that the IAD did not structure its decision so as to separate the analysis of the two branches of subsection 4(1). [...] [25] For all of these reasons, I do not accept the applicant’s contention that the IAD erred in dealing with the two branches of subsection 4(1) of the Regulations jointly.
-
7,248.
Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Torres - 2017 FC 918 - 2017-10-17
Federal Court DecisionsThe member then proceeds to deal with the factors set out in section 248 of the IRP Regulations. [...] [24] The Member did not expressly deal with the grounds for determining that there was a flight risk or the length of the existing detention in his reasons. [...] If the law assumes, as it does, that the ordinary citizen is deemed to know the law, it can be fairly assumed that ID members charged with the administration of IRPA and its regulations should be deemed to know the law which they are directly and specifically charged with administering.
-
7,249.
Price v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2016 FC 649 - 2016-06-10
Federal Court DecisionsOn June 1, 2015, Justice Heneghan allowed the application on grounds of procedural fairness. [...] Mr. Tudor Price says that the final level decision-maker: failed to deal with his allegations of bad faith and damage to his reputation; failed to consider the allegation that his resignation was invalid because it was induced by deceit; unreasonably refused to allow an amendment of the grievance to include additional [...] (i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, [...]
-
7,250.
Khalifa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1181 - 2015-10-20
Federal Court DecisionsIn the circumstances, the mandamus application was the appropriate venue to deal with this issue. [...] a) dans l’attente de renseignements ou d’éléments de preuve ou des résultats d’une enquête, afin d’établir si le demandeur remplit, à l’égard de la demande, les conditions prévues sous le régime de la présente loi, si celui-ci devrait faire l’objet d’une enquête dans le cadre de la Loi sur l’immigration et la protection des [...] I further agree that the Board validly exercised its discretion to conclude that, in the circumstances, the mandamus application was the appropriate venue for Mr. Khalifa to deal with the citizenship issue, as in the Stanizai and Ovalle decisions.