11,315 result(s)
-
7,301.
Bancheri v. M.N.R. - 1999-01-19
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[5] I propose to deal with this appeal in two parts, dealing first with the substantive aspect of the decision and secondly with the jurisdictional issue. [...] If it is a substantially similar contract of employment, Parliament has deemed it to be only fair that it should be included in the scheme. [...] [8] Section 61 of the Act deals with appeals to and determination of questions by the Minister.
-
7,302.
Schillaci v. Canada (National Revenue) - 2021 FC 27 - 2021-01-08
Federal Court DecisionsWas the Minister’s refusal issued in breach of the requirements of procedural fairness or natural justice? [...] C. The Minister’s Decision was Fair [62] Mr. Schillaci makes a number of arguments under the rubric of natural justice or procedural fairness. [...] There was no breach of the duty of procedural fairness or the requirements of natural justice.
-
7,303.
Ribeiro Gadelha Simas Reis v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 179 - 2012-02-08
Federal Court Decisionsa. Whether the Officer breached his right to procedural fairness by: [...] The Applicant was not Given a Fair Hearing [25] The Applicant says that, in addition to breaching his right to reasons, the Officer did not give him a fair hearing when she did not consider his homosexuality. [...] What his application fails to deal with is why, if the Applicant is required to return to Brazil and apply for permanent residence from outside of Canada he will suffer any kind of hardship.
-
7,304.
Weyand v. The Queen - 2004 TCC 355 - 2004-05-10
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIn 1995, he incorporated ACT Active Capital Transactions Inc. (hereafter "ACT"), a British Columbia corporation, to deal with investments and finances while he looked for a parcel of land to develop. [...] [31] Late in 2000, ACT sold the 38 units to the Appellant and her husband for $3,350,000 which was both cost to ACT and fair market value. [...] The GST liability under subsection 191(1) was based on the fair market value of the property when the tenants took possession.
-
7,305.
Moodie v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2014 FC 433 - 2014-05-06
Federal Court Decisions(a) Procedural fairness [46] The applicant makes five (5) main submissions concerning procedural fairness. [...] (a) Procedural fairness [55] The respondent submits that the applicant was afforded procedural fairness and that the whole redress of the grievance process was “exceedingly fair” (Respondent’s Memorandum of Fact and Law at para 47). [...] (2) The Grievances Committee shall deal with all matters before it as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness permit.
-
7,306.
Hammond v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2009 FC 570 - 2009-06-02
Federal Court DecisionsHer answers at the oral interview were rated as “low-fair” and the answers provided by her reference checks were rated as “fair.” The assessment board commented that “Reference was fair. [...] She is a good team player + is very open + honest in her dealings with people. [...] Overall rating-low fair.” The assessment board awarded a score of 50 in the “fair” range for Relationship Building.
-
7,307.
Canada (Minister of the Environment) v. Bennett Environmental Inc. - 2005 FCA 261 - 2005-07-19
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsGeneral comments on the fairness of the procedure followed by the Minister 101 [...] [71] The Minister is not permitted to refer a project to a review panel under subsection 46(1) or subsection 48(1) of the CEAA if agreements are in place that deal with specified issues. [...] General comments on the fairness of the procedure followed by the Minister
-
7,308.
McLean v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1093 - 2023-08-10
Federal Court DecisionsHe found that the Agreement, despite the objections and its alleged shortcomings, was fair and reasonable. [...] See, by way of comparison, Lavier v MyTravel Canada Holidays Inc, 2011 ONSC 3149 at paragraphs 35–36; Myers v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 95 [Myers] (dealing with the IRSSA). [...] [120] As we have seen above, the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction may be invoked where there is a gap in the settlement agreement to deal with unforeseen circumstances.
-
7,309.
Gray v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2019 FC 301 - 2019-03-12
Federal Court DecisionsWhen dealing with a judicial review, it is not a matter of requesting the disclosure of any document which could be relevant in the hopes of later establishing relevance. [...] The Court noted that to gain other information, the applicant must raise a ground for review that falls within an exception—for example a breach of procedural fairness or bias. [...] [118] Since the Notices of Application in this case do not raise procedural fairness or bias as an issue, an exception to the general rule does not apply, as noted by the CMJ.
-
7,310.
Buffone v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FC 346 - 2017-04-06
Federal Court Decisions[71] In my view, this addresses a specific argument and clarifies the duty of procedural fairness under section 7.1, as well as subsections 4.2(2) and (3). [...] c) peut, dans le cas d’une infraction visée à l’alinéa 4(1)a), faire procéder à des enquêtes au sujet des critères sur lesquels elle peut se fonder pour déterminer si le fait d’ordonner la suspension du casier serait susceptible de déconsidérer l’administration de la justice. [...] b. n'a pas usé de violence, d'intimidation ou de contrainte envers la victime, ni tenté ou menacé de le faire;
-
7,311.
Goldthorpe v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 1012 - 2024-06-28
Federal Court Decisions[16] The Guidelines state, under the “Purpose and intent of the fairness provisions” heading, that: [...] The TRP (formerly known as Fairness) permits the CRA to help clients resolve problems that arise in filing their GST/HST new housing rebate application through no fault of their own. [...] The provisions allow for a common-sense approach to dealing with those who, because of personal misfortune or other circumstances beyond their control, are unable to comply with the requirement to file the New Housing Rebate application for owner-built homes within the two-year time limit.
-
7,312.
Sharsheev v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 49 - 2024-01-12
Federal Court Decisions”. [4] On March 4, 2020, the Applicant received a procedural fairness letter [PFL] from IRCC advising that he might be inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation. [...] [16] Section 40 of the IRPA deals with inadmissibility due to misrepresentation. [...] a) directement ou indirectement, faire une présentation erronée sur un fait important quant à un objet pertinent, ou une réticence sur ce fait, ce qui entraîne ou risque d’entraîner une erreur dans l’application de la présente loi;
-
7,313.
He v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2022 FC 1503 - 2022-11-03
Federal Court DecisionsThe reviewing court will adopt a posture of restraint, intervening 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). [...] In this sense, she followed the guidelines contained in the CRA’s “Confirmation of Eligibility” document, which suggests that when a taxpayer submits self-employment income from entities or persons not dealing at arm’s length with the taxpayer, additional documentation should be requested. [...] [32] At the hearing before the Court, Ms. He’s counsel suggested that Ms. He was not able to express herself adequately before the CRA, suggesting a breach of the rules of procedural fairness.
-
7,314.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tanner - 2021 FC 809 - 2021-07-30
Federal Court Decisions[15] Due to procedural fairness concerns, Citizenship Judge Hart adjourned the matter until Mr. Tanner had access to the Excel spreadsheet being relied upon by the Minister. [...] Nor did Citizenship Judge Hart deal with the new submissions made by the Minister’s representative or Mr. Tanner in her decision. [...] It is unclear why the Minister’s representative would not want Mr. Tanner to have the same materials that they were asking the decision-maker to consider; as noted by Citizenship Judge Hart when she adjourned the matter, this would seem to lead to a clear breach of the principles of procedural fairness.
-
7,315.
McGillivray v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2021 FC 443 - 2021-05-13
Federal Court Decisions[3] Beginning in 2014, the Applicant was dealing with a number of personal and professional issues, including the health of his parents and workplace issues within the Burnaby Detachment of the RCMP. This led him to seek the care of health professionals, including from a psychiatrist. [...] 33 (1) The Commissioner, when rendering a decision as to the disposition of the appeal, must consider whether the decision that is the subject of the appeal contravenes the principles of procedural fairness, is based on an error of law or is clearly unreasonable. [...] 33(1) The Commissioner, when rendering a decision as to the disposition of the appeal, must consider whether the decision that is the subject of the appeal contravenes the principles of procedural fairness, is based on an error of law or is clearly unreasonable.
-
7,316.
Habimana v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 143 - 2021-02-11
Federal Court DecisionsBefore the RAD could deal with the matter, the Applicants’ counsel was suspended from the Bar for unrelated matters. [...] S’il ne peut le faire, il en donne la raison et indique quelles mesures il a prises pour se procurer de tels documents. [...] Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.”
-
7,317.
Fischer v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2021 FC 112 - 2021-02-03
Federal Court DecisionsThe question is not whether there has been a breach of the prison rules, but whether there has been a breach of the duty to act fairly in all the circumstances. [...] [24] Justice Kelen in Ross, found that Mr. Ross had not been denied a fair hearing which was the issue advanced on review. [...] [34] All of the items listed in paragraph 11 are “computer peripherals” save for the one item dealing specifically with “electronic games.” That item states that “electronic game consoles with communication capabilities such as, but not limited to PlayStation 2, GameCube, X-Box, Plug and Play preloaded game controllers and
-
7,318.
Beddows v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2020 FCA 166 - 2020-10-06
Federal Court of Appeal Decisionsin the certified tribunal record and the other concerning the fact that the 2017 Grievance had not been referred to the Military Grievances External Review Committee (the Review Committee) by the CDS, which the appellant asserted violated subsection 29.12(1) of the Act and infringed his rights to procedural fairness. [...] He claims that this delay in determining the 2014 Grievance contravenes section 29.11 of the Act, which requires the CDS to deal with a grievance as expeditiously as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness permit.
-
7,319.
B147 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 843 - 2018-08-17
Federal Court Decisions[9] The Applicant submits that the Minister’s Delegate’s decision is based on veiled credibility findings that were made in violation of the principles of procedural fairness. [...] In some cases, the Court has applied a correctness standard because the matter is viewed as a matter of procedural fairness (see Mudiyanselage v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 749 at para 11; Zmari v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 132 at para 13; Micolta v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [...] The most important one, in my view, is the Minister’s Delegate’s statement that he is “also cognizant that throughout his dealings with CBSA officials, there is reference to [the Applicant] having access to many documents, fraudulent or otherwise” and is “therefore, cautious of the documentary evidence submitted by [the
-
7,320.
Paradis Honey Ltd. v. Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food) - 2018 FC 814 - 2018-08-02
Federal Court DecisionsAs there is no specific rule dealing with discovery of documents in class proceedings, Rules 222 to 233 govern by default. [...] The principle for determining what document properly relates to the matters in issue is that it must be one which might reasonably be supposed to contain information which may directly or indirectly enable the party requiring production to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary, or which might fairly [...] [32] Given the breadth of the common issues, and in the absence of any evidence that further production would be onerous, I consider it both efficient and fair to require the parties who have been identified as representatives of the class to provide financial records and other documents relevant to this matter.
-
7,321.
Guo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2017 FC 317 - 2017-03-27
Federal Court DecisionsAlthough the LifeNews article post-dated the RPD decision, it was not accepted into evidence by the RAD because it contained information that was available prior to the RPD decision and it contained “a great deal of conjecture” that was irrelevant to the determinative issues. [...] [15] The Applicants fairly point out that the RAD’s conclusory remarks after reviewing each issue were fairly brief.
-
7,322.
Nosistel v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FC 122 - 2017-01-31
Federal Court DecisionsMs. Nosistel, who is representing herself, is seeking a series of remedies, ranging from obtaining the acknowledgement of deficiencies in the management of the access to information request and of a harassment complaint to the full re‑establishment of her integrity, dignity and reputation and the assurance of fair [...] Thus, in her voluminous reply record to the respondents’ motion (November 28, 2016), she submits at paragraph 196 of her memorandum that she had not [translation] “had the opportunity to exercise her right to be heard, a fair chance to present her case, and enough time and details to respond.” Other than this general [...] ” The applicant argues that [translation] “this letter suggested that her concerns (that is, the grievances) would be addressed and created a legitimate expectation that she would receive a response.” Such a comment is surprising because, on its face, the Commissioner’s letter unequivocally does not deal with the
-
7,323.
Olumide v. Canada - 2016 FCA 287 - 2016-11-17
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsHe did not take the position that the Court should not deal with the letter. [...] expensive.” Doing this also implements the Supreme Court’s recent commandment that courts should fashion practices and procedures and apply them in a way that furthers fairness, expedition, efficiency, the conservation of judicial resources, and the minimization of costs: Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R 87. [...] However, given the fact that the vexatious litigant motion is now continued as a separate application, out of fairness Mr. Olumide should be given another opportunity to respond to the application record.
-
7,324.
Noahs Ark Foundation v. Canada - 2015 FC 1183 - 2015-10-19
Federal Court Decisions[20] Apart from the fact that Rule 112(1) appears irrelevant to the issue that was before Prothonotary Aalto as it is unrelated to the Rules dealing with the representation of parties, this argument must fail since Rule 399 is not meant to vary or set aside judgments of this Court when the parties are not well-versed in the [...] Therefore, I conclude that fairness is not an issue since the Applicant was given a reasonable and fair opportunity to respond to the issue of whether the Applicants required representation by counsel pursuant to Rule 120 of the Rules (Minister of National Revenue v Optical Recording Corp, [1987] FCJ No 405, 79 NR 23, at
-
7,325.
International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2015 FC 435 - 2015-04-09
Federal Court Decisions[10] Rowbotham orders are primarily issued in criminal cases, in situations where trial fairness requires that an accused be represented by state-funded counsel. [...] The legal foundation for making such orders is found in sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982 c.11, which guarantee an accused a fair trial in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. [...] The legal assistant’s affidavit asserts that the unnamed “directing Board members” of IRFAN are “aged and are dealing with serious [unidentified] medical issues” and that they do not have the legal training or knowledge to represent IRFAN in connection with this matter.