Advanced Search

Karimi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1163 - 2015-10-14

[9] Whether Mr. Karimi was given a sufficient opportunity to meet the requirements of his application for a permanent resident visa is a question of procedural fairness, and is therefore subject to review by this Court against the standard of correctness (Patel v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 900  [...]  [58] The solution therefore does not seem to lie in cautioning or discouraging applicants from using email, but in finding a strategy to deal with the occasional email error, especially when an applicant has done everything on his or her end to accommodate email communication.

Adejumo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2011 FC 1485 - 2011-12-16

However, the Citizenship Act was amended in December 2007 and April 2009 to deal with such situations.   [...]  [4] Angela’s father is a fairly well-to-do man by Nigerian standards.

Spidel v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2010 FC 1028 - 2010-10-21

While not dealing with freedom issues, as in Ferndale, the Court is faced with health issues which are serious matters.   [...]  [18] There is no evidence that the conclusion of the Applicant’s grievance process is a foregone conclusion nor is there any reason to believe that the grievance will not be fairly considered.

Blanchet v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local 712 - 2009 FCA 103 - 2009-04-01

The applicant accused his union of breaching its duty of fair and equitable representation under section 37 of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2 (Code).   [...]  I will also deal with issues raised at the hearing. [9] The Board was not required to hold an oral hearing, even though one had been requested: Nav Canada v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2228, 2001 FCA 30, at paragraphs 10 and 11; Raymond v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers and Canada Post

Dené Tha’ First Nation v. Canada - 2008 FC 679 - 2008-05-27

[4] During the course of the examination for discovery of the Crown’s representative held in March 2001, then counsel for the Plaintiffs asked the Crown to provide other provisions of Treaty 8 dealing with the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to “two hoes, a spade and what have you”.   [...]  [16] Ultimately, this motion boils down to a consideration of simple fairness, common sense and the interests of justice.

Barnes v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) - 2004 FC 985 - 2004-07-14

The final stage of the review is consideration of the overpayment issue by a Review Tribunal acting pursuant to s.82 of the Act. A multiplicity of arguments have been made as to the ambit of the Minister's obligations to deal with the overpayment issue in the decision, and also the jurisdiction of the Review Tribunal to   [...]  le ministre peut, sauf dans les cas où cette personne a été condamnée, aux termes d'une disposition de la présente loi ou du Code criminel, pour avoir obtenu la prestation illégalement, faire remise de tout ou partie des montants versés indûment ou en exc

Boyd v. Canada (Minister of Transport) - 2004 FC 263 - 2004-03-03

[22] Dealing with the merits of this application for judicial review, the CAT found Boyd to have contravened the CARS and the SFOC conditions on a very different basis than that alleged by Transport Canada.   [...]  This is a simple issue of fairness and natural justice. The concept of "notice" and "an opportunity to be heard"on that issue is so fundamental to public law as to admit of no debate.

Chandler v. The Queen - 2003 TCC 34 - 2003-05-13

While the subsection does not say so explicitly, it is fair to infer that Parliament intended, by section 8, to sweep in payments, distributions, benefits and advantages that flow from a corporation to a shareholder by some route other than the dividend route and that might be expected to reach the shareholder by the more

Emmanuels v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2002 FCT 865 - 2002-08-15

Such characterization fairly reflected the preponderance of the evidence adduced by the claimants, and the submissions of their counsel to the CRDD.   [...]  [4] Given that Mrs. Emmanuels stated that her fear of returning to Russia was, at least in part, based on her relationship with a Nigerian man and the panel's acknowledgement of this, I accept the submission of counsel for the applicants that it was an error for the CRDD to fail to deal with this aspect of Mrs. Emmanuels'

Wedow v. Canada (Solicitor General0 - 2001 FCT 464 - 2001-05-10

15. Access to telephones, through an inmate telephone system, should be provided, on a fair and consistent basis, to help maintain family and community ties and to provide a direct link with families in the event of an emergency.   [...]  [28] The application of new technologies implies that inmates have to deal with registered voice and have no possibility to reach an operator to allow a third party to accept to pay the collect call, as it was the case before implementation of new technologies; machines are now talking to machines.

Ahmed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2000-07-31

facts, those particular facts being, the long lapse of time since the applicant entered Canada, the acknowledged instability in Somalia, the fact that the Port of Entry notes had not been raised to the attention of the applicant at any other stage in his dealings with immigration officials, and his mental condition.   [...]  Against these particular facts, I am satisfied that the PCDO breached the duty of fairness owed by him to the applicant in failing to disclose the Port of Entry notes on which the PCDO intended to rely and to provide the applicant an opportunity to comment on the contradictions and inconsistencies between those notes on the

Katz v. The Queen - 1999-08-05

The Appellant stated that in the original draft of the agreement he was to transfer his shares to specified shareholders, however he asked that the clause be changed as he felt not all of the shareholders under this transaction were dealt with fairly.   [...]  (ii) to a person with whom the taxpayer was dealing at arm’s length of any property that is

Payne v. The Queen - 1999-05-25

a) at all material times, Genevieve (Jean) Payne was the spouse of the Appellant and the two were not dealing at arm's length;   [...]  g) at the time of transfer, the fair market value of the Property was no less than $24,926.09;