Advanced Search

Janssen Inc. v. Teva Canada Limited - 2011 FC 1480 - 2011-12-15

1. Can these three entities be added now, given that they were not parties to the first phase of the action dealing with infringement, validity, and injunctive relief?   [...]  Ultimately it boils down to a consideration of simple fairness, common sense and the interest that the courts have that justice be done.   [...]  ISSUE #1: Can these three entities be added now, given that they were not parties to the first phase of the action dealing with infringement, validity and injunctive relief?

Canada (Attorney General) v. United States Steel Corporation - 2011 FC 226 - 2011-02-25

a) l’objet de la modification est de faire concorder le document avec les questions en litige à l’audience;   [...]  • [28] I prefer the AGC’s analysis which neatly summarizes the above issues into two core arguments which deal with the bulk of US Steel’s allegations:   [...]  • [35] However, having reviewed US Steel’s submissions, I am in complete agreement with the AGC in that it appears as though US Steel has conflated liability with remedy.The amendment deals solely with the remedy sought by the AGC, and has no effect on how the Court will determine whether the Minister was justified in

Grant v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2010 FC 958 - 2010-09-24

A discretionary ministerial decision made pursuant to legislation which engages the Minister’s expertise and policy role will similarly attract a great deal of deference and point to a standard of reasonableness in some matters regarding the interpretation of the statute.   [...]  [38] The real issue to deal with then is whether there was sufficient evidence to allow the Minister to make a good-faith finding that the Applicant presents a significant risk of committing a criminal organization offence once transferred to Canada.   [...]  [48] As an anecdote, the fact that two of Mr. Grant’s co-accused transfer requests have been approved may be compelling, but as a matter of law, the doctrine of legitimate expectations is limited to procedural fairness.

Shindle v. The Queen - 2009 TCC 133 - 2009-03-12

It is, of course, the general rule that every party to litigation in this Court must plead the facts upon which he relies in such a way as to put his opponent fairly on notice of the case he has to meet.   [...]  That basis was and is that the appellant's dealings in shares of the companies in question constituted for him an adventure in the nature of trade so as to make the profits therefrom taxable as income.   [...]  He had worked in Toronto at a major accounting firm dealing with Canadian executives who worked in the United States.

Zolghadr v. The Queen - 2008 TCC 669 - 2008-12-10

[13] I am going to deal with the expenses in groups, and I will use Schedule “A” for the year 2001 as representative of all three years.   [...]  [21] For tools, I will allow him more than Revenue Canada has and I will also deal with that later.   [...]  As a matter of fairness, amounts have to be allowed and that is what I propose to do and the amounts will be global.

Canada (National Revenue) v. Hernandez - 2008 FC 1105 - 2008-10-02

After considering the case law dealing with the former version of section 225.2 he concluded (at page 296) that in a subsection 225.2(8) application the Minister has the ultimate burden of justifying the decision despite the fact that section 225.2 as amended no longer includes the former paragraph (5) that specifically   [...]  [11] I am satisfied that the Minister should only proceed by way of application for a jeopardy order under subsection 225.2(2), ex parte, where she or he is able to demonstrate to a judge that a jeopardy order is necessary to protect the Minister’s position and that no alternative procedure that is more fair to the taxpayer  [...]  [27] I point out here that the respondent’s criticisms, including those specifically raised in the respondent’s written representations, deal primarily with the hypothetical, inadequate or decontextualized nature of certain allegations made by Mr. Goyette and Ms. Plante in their respective affidavits.

Fritz Marketing Inc. v. Canada - 2008 FC 703 - 2008-06-05

51 In this case, I find that Mr. Vieyra failed to substantially disclose a fair and balanced set of facts to the Justice of the Peace in order for that Justice to determine whether there were reasonable and probable grounds that an offence had been committed under the Customs Act.   [...]  61 While I am able to excise from the preamble of the warrant the illegal portion dealing with evidence of future offences, I am not able to excise from the Information to Obtain those paragraphs which present the inadequate, unbalanced background that Mr. Vieyra presented and leave sufficient information which satisfies me  [...]  12 The case of R. v. Spindloe (supra) deals with seized items that were tainted with criminality by their nature.

MacIver v. The Queen - 2007 TCC 554 - 2007-09-25

This sound rule of practice and procedure aims at ensuring both the fairness and the expeditiousness of the proceedings.   [...]  [9] The majority of cases heard pursuant to Rule 91 deal with an Appellant’s failure to disclose documents or to provide a list of documents to the other party.   [...]   or any, notice by the Appellant for his read-ins, I obtained a copy of the full transcript and permitted the Appellant to proceed despite argument by the Respondent that the Appellant was continuing his abusive pattern of breaching the rule that required notice of read-ins in a motion that deals with abuse of the rules.

Lawson v. Accusearch Inc. - 2007 FC 125 - 2007-02-05

Although the refusal deals with a number of issues, in essence the Privacy Commissioner was of the view that PIPEDA did not give her jurisdiction to investigate Ms. Lawson’s complaint.   [...]  It should be mentioned that she also filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission in the United States on the grounds that Abika appeared to be violating various provisions of the U.S. Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the U.S. Fair Credit Reporting Act.   [...]  It seems quite clear to me that s. 22(3) of the Federal Court Act, which I have already referred to, envisages that the Federal Court, in dealing with a foreign ship or with claims arising on the high seas may find it necessary to consider the application of foreign law in respect of the cause of action before it.

Fabian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 851 - 2006-07-05

Clearly if this is his mindset and that of his confederates with whom he was dealing, then the element of specific deterrence and general deterrence have a very real significance in sentencing.   [...]  [17] In March of 2002, this Court quashed the 1998 danger opinion, on the consent of the parties, as the requirements of procedural fairness articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2002 SCC 1, had not been followed in Mr. Fabian's case.   [...]  In relation to the fact that Mr. Fabian was involved in dealing in forged passports, Justice Russell found no error in the Delegate's conclusion that this sort of activity would be viewed by any reasonable observer to be the sort of activity that could be related to potentially assisting terrorists.

McManus v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2005 FC 1281 - 2005-09-19

... 7. Given the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that Lt. (N)) McManus was treated in a fair and equitable manner consistent with others in similar circumstances.   [...]  In your case, one of the concerns with you on IR was to deal with your needs for food (rations) and shelter (quarters).   [...]  [26] Counsel have drawn attention to other Regulations dealing with expenses in respect of members of the Canadian Forces, these are generally gathered in a section entitled "Transportation and Travelling Expenses" in ten subsections in which the one at issue here occurs in the last section entitled "Miscellaneous".

Arrinaj v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 773 - 2005-05-31

In the alternative, the Board's failure to separately address section 97 amounted to a breach of fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons.   [...]  [42] I propose to deal first with Issue 3. Did the Board err with respect to the test at law under section 96?   [...]  [45] I need not deal with the other issues raised in the application.

Ryan v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2005 FC 65 - 2005-01-21

[13] There is no privative clause in the PSSRA, however this absence alone does not undermine the long established tradition that in cases dealing with interpretation and application of collective agreements, the standard is reasonableness.   [...]  (i) a provision of a statute, or of a regulation, by-law, direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, dealing with terms and conditions of employment, or   [...]  a) de refuser d'employer ou de continuer à employer une personne, ou encore de faire des distinctions injustes fondées, en ce qui concerne l'emploi ou l'une quelconque des conditions d'emploi d'une personne, sur l'appartenance de celle-ci à une organisation syndicale ou sur l'exercice d'un droit que lui accorde la présente