11,312 result(s)
-
7,651.
Jeanty v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 971 - 2021-09-20
Federal Court DecisionsHowever, I need not deal with any of these other issues raised by the applicants as I find the RAD’s determination on credibility to be unintelligible and its assessment of forward-facing risk to be unreasonable. [...] [29] The applicants submit that questions of procedural fairness are subject to the standard of correctness, however, do not clearly identify an issue of procedural fairness.
-
7,652.
Poirier v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2020 FC 850 - 2020-08-25
Federal Court DecisionsThe Director denied Mr. Poirier’s grievance after concluding that he had been treated fairly and in accordance with applicable rules, regulations and policies when he was demoted and reclassified to the position of electrical distribution technician. [...] [22] On July 20, 2017, the initial authority assigned to deal with the grievance concluded that Mr. Poirier had been treated fairly and in accordance with the applicable policies.
-
7,653.
Fawcett v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FC 1071 - 2017-11-27
Federal Court Decisions[12] The initial decision by the FA was quashed by this Court on a judicial review for reasons of procedural fairness (see: Fawcett v Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 750). [...] [23] Captain Fawcett did not raise any issues of procedural fairness. [...] [46] The relevant provision of CFAO 24-6 dealing with attributability states as follows:
-
7,654.
Ogundairo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2017 FC 612 - 2017-06-21
Federal Court Decisions[27] Regarding paragraph 43, the RAD failed to recognize that, by implication of the physical separation of the Applicant from her family, the Applicant and her children will not have meaningful practical support from her family to deal with the extreme challenges that they will face. [...] IV. A Fair and Just Result [33] There is no question that the decision presently under review must be set aside. [...] [35] Specific directions to the RAD on what is required to be considered on the redetermination should aid in reaching a fair and just result.
-
7,655.
Paradis v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2016 FC 1282 - 2016-11-17
Federal Court DecisionsThere are exceptions to this principle such as when there are allegations of a breach of procedural fairness or of a reasonable apprehension of bias: Ontario Assn. of Architects v Assn. of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, 2002 FCA 218, [2002] FCJ No 813 at para 30; McFadyen v. Canada (Attorney General) 2005 FCA 360, [...] [23] There is no evidence of a breach of procedural fairness or of bias on the part of the Tribunal in these proceedings. [...] The question of whether the employer should have provided reasonable accommodation to assist the applicant to deal with his drug dependency is a matter for another forum.
-
7,656.
Shoan v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2016 FC 1031 - 2016-09-09
Federal Court DecisionsIn a decision that was very critical of the process followed by the investigator, Justice Zinn found that Mr. Shoan had been denied procedural fairness in the investigation process, as the investigator had approached the investigation with a closed mind. [...] [27] The report of the harassment investigation has now been set aside as a result of Justice Zinn’s determination that Mr. Shoan was denied procedural fairness and natural justice in the investigation process as the investigator approached her task with a closed mind, and the outcome of the investigation had been [...] In the interests of completeness, however, I will also deal briefly with the issue of the balance of convenience.
-
7,657.
Crete v. The Queen - 2016 TCC 132 - 2016-05-27
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[24] While subsection 152(1) of the Act provides that the Minister shall, with all due dispatch, examine a taxpayer’s return of income for a taxation year, assess the tax for the year, as well as interest and penalties, if any, subsection 160.1(1) deals with a situation where an amount has been refunded in excess of the [...] [28] Since it is not a court of equity, the Tax Court’s jurisdiction does not include equitable considerations such as whether there is an issue of fairness to the Appellant. [...] [30] While the Minister has admitted that the overpayments made to the Appellant were the result of an administrative error, in fairness to CRA, it should be recognized that they were only informed of her shared-custody status in November 2013.
-
7,658.
Olah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2016 FC 316 - 2016-03-15
Federal Court Decisions[17] The Applicants submitted a great deal of new evidence in their PRRA application, including information relating to Mr. Hohots and their inadequate representation before the RPD, materials to corroborate the 2001 attack, and country documentation on Hungary. [...] [25] I will apply a correctness standard in addressing the issue, the same standard that has been applied when inadequate or incompetent counsel raise fairness concerns (Galyas v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 250 at para 27; Nagy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 640 at para 19; El Kaissi v [...] [28] The Respondent counters that while an error in procedural fairness will ordinarily void a decision, an exception arises where it is a foregone conclusion that a re-assessment of the claim would automatically lead to the same outcome (Yassine v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] FCJ No 949 (FCA)
-
7,659.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration v. Nwobi - 2014 FC 520 - 2014-05-30
Federal Court DecisionsDuring the hearing, counsel for Mr. Nwobi seemed to liken the proposed preclusion to the doctrine of estoppel: the Minister had a full and fair opportunity to raise the issue during the inadmissibility hearing but did not. [...] [14] Counsel for Mr. Nwobi identified jurisprudence stating that if a claimant does not advance a claim at a hearing, the RPD cannot be faulted for not dealing with it. [...] Canada (Attorney General) v Ward, [1993] 2 SCR 689; Viafara v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1526 at paragraph 13.” In particular, he stated that “[t]he failure of the Board to address a ground of persecution, raised on the face of the record, is a breach of procedural fairness” (at paragraph 6).
-
7,660.
Marcogliese v. Her Majesty the Queen - 2013 TCC 388 - 2013-12-05
Tax Court of Canada Judgments(c) a person with whom the person 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
-
7,661.
Buschau v. Rogers Communications Incorporated - 2012 FCA 197 - 2012-06-28
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsIn this portion of the reasons I now deal with these interlocutory motions. [...] Additional evidence may be admitted on issues of procedural fairness and jurisdiction (Ontario Assn. of Architects v. Assn. of Architectural Technologists of Ontario, 2002 FCA 218, [2003] 1 F.C. 331, at paragraph 30). [...] The evidence the appellants seek to adduce does not go to issues of jurisdiction or procedural fairness and no basis has been established for supplementing the tribunal record.
-
7,662.
Zhang v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2011 FC 1215 - 2011-10-25
Federal Court DecisionsMs. Zhang says that the failure of the PSLRB to deal properly with the post-termination evidence resulted in a denial of procedural fairness. [...] [47] Even if I view this matter in light of the more intrusive standard of review applying to issues of procedural fairness, I am not persuaded that the Board erred in concluding that the post-termination evidence was not persuasive or relevant to Ms. Zhang’s grievance.
-
7,663.
Aquazition 2007 Ltd v. M.N.R. - 2011 TCC 77 - 2011-02-24
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsThe four guidelines are the payer's right to control the worker, whether the worker or the payer owns the tools required to fulfil a worker's function, and the worker's chance of profit and risk of loss in his or her dealings with the payer. [...] • [32] Then there was (kk): "the Appellant covered the costs of the Worker redoing work."Mr. Cargill very fairly said that in some cases it wasn't necessarily her fault if the water quality wasn't up to standard because in some cases dirt or soil or whatever would just continue to come down the pipe. [...] That never, in fact, happened, so we don't know, and he very fairly admitted that if it was screwdrivers or something that she lost, she wouldn't be required to pay for those.
-
7,664.
Plamondon v. The Queen - 2011 TCC 47 - 2011-01-26
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[9] The respondent stated that the Court must follow the decision of Associate Chief Justice Bowman, as he then was, in Klotz v. The Queen.[1] That case deals with the appeal of a taxpayer who bought prints to donate to various universities. [...] Similarly, "utiliser" is defined in Le Petit Robert 1 dictionnaire de la langue française as "rendre utile, faire servir à une fin précise... employer". [...] That provision applies when a number of PUP that would ordinarily be disposed of in one disposition as a set were disposed of in more than one disposition to the same person and had a total fair market value of more than $1,000.
-
7,665.
Ustel v. The Queen - 2010 TCC 444 - 2010-08-26
Tax Court of Canada Judgmentsthis case, the Corporation), if they are not dealing at arm’s length, are jointly and severally liable to pay the transferor’s tax up to an amount equal to the lesser of (a) the amount 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
-
7,666.
Rhodes v. Compagnie Amway Canada - 2010 FC 498 - 2010-05-05
Federal Court Decisions[7] The Plaintiffs are of the view that this Court has a broad discretion to set the agenda of the proceedings, and that it should do so in a manner which ensures a fair and prompt hearing of all the motions and arguments of both parties. [...] This can best be achieved by dealing with the various motions of the Defendants at the same time as the hearing and decision on the Plaintiffs’ motion for certification as a class action. [...] An exception may also be warranted where the preliminary motion is time sensitive or necessary to ensure that the proceeding is conducted fairly.
-
7,667.
Backx v. Canada (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) - 2010 FC 480 - 2010-05-03
Federal Court Decisions- The decision violated the CFIA’s staffing values of fairness and openness; [...] [17] Finally, the CFIA’s view that similar positions can be identified by comparing the selection criteria without reference to the actual duties violates the CFIA staffing values of fairness, openness and efficiency/effectiveness. [...] [26] The present application involves only one issue and it deals with the interpretation and application of a procedure in place at the CFIA for the filling of vacant positions.
-
7,668.
Sanchez Focil v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2010 FC 50 - 2010-01-19
Federal Court Decisions[21] Having found the claim not credible, the Panel did not deem it useful to deal with the alleged vehicle chase prior to the departure of the Applicants for Canada. [...] This Court may have arrived at a different conclusion, but this is not its mandate, which is limited to ensuring that the Panel’s decision falls within the range of acceptable outcomes and complies with legislation and principles of fairness and of natural justice. [...] The function of this Court is to ensure that the Panel carried out its responsibilities within the legal framework set out by its constitutive legislation and with due regard to the rules of fairness and of fundamental justice.
-
7,669.
Association des Crevettiers Acadiens du Golfe Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2009 FCA 229 - 2009-07-09
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsHowever, affidavit evidence is admitted on issues of procedural fairness and jurisdiction. [...] As the decision of the Court will deal only with the grounds of review invoked by the respondent, the relevance of the documents requested must necessarily be determined in relation to the grounds of review set forth in the originating notice of motion and the affidavit filed by the respondent. [...] The production requested, set out in the notice of application, is fairly specific.
-
7,670.
Association des crabiers acadiens inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2009 FCA 230 - 2009-07-09
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsHowever, affidavit evidence is admitted on issues of procedural fairness and jurisdiction. [...] As the decision of the Court will deal only with the grounds of review invoked by the respondent, the relevance of the documents requested must necessarily be determined in relation to the grounds of review set forth in the originating notice of motion and the affidavit filed by the respondent. [...] The production requested, set out in the notice of application, is fairly specific.
-
7,671.
Parshottam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 51 - 2008-01-15
Federal Court DecisionsThe applicant seeks to have it admitted to dispute the PRRA officer’s grounds for refusing to deal with the merits of his claim as against Uganda; to address allegations that he is ‘asylum shopping’; and, to show a breach of natural justice in the officer’s reliance on information which has been disproved through the new [...] [34] Finally, the applicant submits that the PRRA Officer breached procedural fairness by failing to disclose that she would be relying on the consent letter between Canada and the US under the Reciprocal Arrangement as evidence of his status in the US. The applicant alleges that he could have responded to the letter had he [...] [36] For all of these reasons, I find the PRRA Officer did not err in law, breach procedural fairness or come to a sufficiently unreasonable conclusion that her decision should be vacated.
-
7,672.
Linares v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 1241 - 2007-11-26
Federal Court Decisions[9] The judgment cited by the applicant deals with a situation similar to the one at bar and is of no assistance in his case. [...] The objective of family reunification does not override, outweigh, supercede or trump the basic requirement that the immigration law must be respected, and administered in an orderly and fair manner. [...] Such a result would be contrary to the proper, fair and orderly administration of the immigration law.
-
7,673.
Nguyen v. The Queen - 2007 TCC 574 - 2007-09-28
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsAccordingly, he was precluded by subsection 18(1) and paragraph 18(1)(b) of the Act from deducting that amount in the computation of the rental loss under subsections 9(1) and 9(2) of the Act. I propose to deal with this issue first. [...] It is fair to say that his primary objective was to establish that the repairs in issue were minor and that as his accountant wrote in the Appellants Notice of Objection: [...] It is fair to say that a taxpayer who incurs expenses to restore a rundown building incurs capital expenditures which would not be considered to be routine maintenance.
-
7,674.
CanWest MediaWorks Inc. v. Canada (Health) - 2007 FC 752 - 2007-07-16
Federal Court Decisions3. (1) Il est interdit de faire, auprès du grand public, la publicité d’un aliment, d’une drogue, d’un cosmétique ou d’un instrument à titre de traitement ou de mesure préventive d’une maladie, d’un désordre ou d’un état physique anormal énumérés à l’annexe A ou à titre de moyen de guérison. [...] (1) Quiconque fait la publicité auprès du grand public d'une drogue mentionnée à l'annexe F doit ne faire porter la publicité que sur la marque nominative, le nom propre, le nom usuel, le prix et la quantité de la drogue. [...] [27] Further, resolution of the CanWest Charter challenge would greatly enhance the ability of this Court to deal with the issues underlying the Application for judicial review.
-
7,675.
Chaudhry v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2007 FC 389 - 2007-04-13
Federal Court Decisions[22] The Applicant said that the fact that he was required to use a representative provided by his bargaining agent deprived him of a fair hearing contrary to subsection 2(e) of the Bill of Rights. [...] [29] In this case, the question the adjudicator was called on to answer was a legal question dealing with whether he had jurisdiction to consider the grievance on its merits. [...] ... (e) deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations