11,312 result(s)
-
8,501.
Holliday v. The Queen - 2019 TCC 232 - 2019-10-24
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsA plain and fair reading of this pleaded assumption indicates the Minister accepted that the reported income amount of $44 was the amount of taxable supplies for Holliday Ltd.’s income tax fiscal period extending from the July 26, 2002 date of incorporation to June 30, 2003. [...] [9] This second issue as to assessed quantum deals with the subsequent reporting period for GST/HST, ending December 31, 2003.
-
8,502.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2019 FC 91 - 2019-01-22
Federal Court DecisionsThe appellant and his counsel were given fair warning. There is no indication of any other breach of natural justice. [...] [17] There is another procedural lapse that is fatal to this application arising from the Applicant’s failure to follow the Federal Court protocol dealing with allegations of professional incompetence or negligence against a lawyer or consultant.
-
8,503.
876958 Ontario Limited v. The Queen - 2018 TCC 253 - 2018-12-14
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIt deals with the quantity, not the purpose or nature of an expense. The provision attempts to limit “artificial” reduction of profit through deducting excessive amounts of expenses that are under the control of the taxpayer. [...] [24] This case would have been fairly easy to decide were it not for the lack of certainty in the December 28, 2012 lease agreement.
-
8,504.
Halepota v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1196 - 2018-11-28
Federal Court DecisionsOn April 25, 2018, the same decision-maker refused to do so, because there was no breach of procedural fairness, no clerical error and no new evidence. [...] [19] Cases dealing with subsection 5(4) rarely reach this Court. One such case, Mitha (Re), 1979 CarswellNat 1041 (FC), dealt with the situation of a UNHCR employee.
-
8,505.
Guo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 15 - 2018-01-09
Federal Court DecisionsHere, the IAD has adopted a one-step abandonment process to deal with appeals in a fair and expeditious manner.
-
8,506.
Alkhairat v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2017 FC 285 - 2017-03-17
Federal Court DecisionsGiven he had two interviews in which to tell the Canadian official about his dealings with Mr. Al Masalma, little weight will be given to evidence not before the decision maker at the time. [...] [23] I find that the Applicants being given two interviews, told of the credibility concerns and then given an opportunity to respond is more procedural fairness than would normally be asked of or expected from a visa officer in this kind of situation.
-
8,507.
Elbit Systems Electro-optics Elop Ltd. v. Selex ES Ltd. - 2016 FC 1000 - 2016-09-02
Federal Court Decisions[4] I will adopt this structure and deal with each category in that order. [...] I am not satisfied that, either on a fair reading of the SOC or at law, the giving of an indemnity is a sine qua non condition of inducement.
-
8,508.
Apotex Inc. v. Alcon Canada Inc. - 2016 FC 720 - 2016-06-24
Federal Court DecisionsTo be fair, Alcon’s fears were legitimately raised by Apotex’s suggestion last year, repeated in its written argument on the motion, that the bifurcation would permit consolidation of the infringement and validity issues for all three patents. [...] The trial of the first phase will not improve the trial judge’s ability to deal with or appreciate the issues in the second phase, however, nor would trying all issues together in a single trial improve the judge’s ability to try and appreciate all issues.
-
8,509.
Okeke v. The Queen - 2015 TCC 301 - 2015-12-01
Tax Court of Canada Judgments(ii) where the donation is a gift of property other than cash, the amount that is the fair market value of the property at the time that the gift was made; [...] ...However, when a taxpayer chooses to deal only in cash, whether for charitable donations or any other matters likely to come under the scrutiny of the Minister of National Revenue, she imposes on herself the burden of having some means of verifying the otherwise untraceable transactions.
-
8,510.
Echegoyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 152 - 2015-02-05
Federal Court Decisionsaddress on the mailing envelopes due to a clerical error, the RPD’s acknowledgment that it obtained and updated the Applicant’s accurate address two weeks before the hearing date but failed inform the Applicant because of omitting the Applicant’s unit number on the mailing envelope implies a breach of procedural fairness. [...] It was argued, as the RPD wrote in its decision, that the Applicant could have filed his motion to reopen on his own and that the right to counsel, when dealing with the RPD, is not absolute.
-
8,511.
Deschênes v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2014 FC 1179 - 2014-12-08
Federal Court Decisionsdécret pris en vertu de la Loi de 1950 sur les forces canadiennes, modifiée par la Loi de 1954 sur les forces canadiennes, de payer, mais pour laquelle il a omis de faire un choix dans le délai imparti à cette fin, s’il opte, à tout moment avant de cesser d’être employé dans la fonction publique, de payer pour ce service [...] [12] First, it is clear that we are not dealing with the exercise of discretion.
-
8,512.
D'Or v. St. Germain - 2014 FCA 28 - 2014-02-03
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions(b) Section 21 also deals with the security of completed ballot papers. [...] It is consistent with the words of the election code, read in their entire context (including the provisions relating to the permitted grounds of appeal), and it results in an election process that fairly balances the electoral rights of the voters with the need for timeliness and certainty of outcome.
-
8,513.
Dias v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2014 FC 64 - 2014-01-21
Federal Court DecisionsFailure to do so is a breach of natural justice and procedural fairness. [...] [23] The Director’s approach was to assume that Passport Canada had a free-standing discretion to deal with misuse of passports through revocation or service denial.
-
8,514.
Blackburn Radio Inc. v. The Queen - 2013 TCC 98 - 2013-02-05
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[8] In 2010, the Rules Committee of this Court proposed amendments to section 147 dealing with settlement offers. [...] The rationale is that if one party’s position is weak, it is only fair that the court should discourage litigation through its costs awards: Data General (Canada) Ltd. v Molnar Systems Group Inc. (1991), 6 OR (3d) 409 and Walker Estate v York Finch General Hospital (1999), 43 OR (3d) 689.
-
8,515.
Betancourt v. Canada (Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism) - 2012 FC 837 - 2012-06-29
Federal Court Decisions[10] The applicants, who are Spanish speaking, submit that they were denied a fair hearing and that their rights under section 14 of the Charter to “the assistance of an interpreter” were violated. [...] [22] I will not deal with all of the submissions made in writing and at the hearing; I choose to focus on the following which illustrates the basis of the finding of inconsistent evidence tendered by the applicants.
-
8,516.
Hercegi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 250 - 2012-02-22
Federal Court DecisionsThey simply went to one police “wicket” and in some cases did not go at all as they did not believe that the police would investigate fairly and impartially. [...] The Board should deal separately with the claims of each of the Hercegi and Fekete family.
-
8,517.
Mutende v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2011 FC 1423 - 2011-12-06
Federal Court Decisions[29] I am also not persuaded that fairness required the Officer to delay her decision in order to allow for DNA testing. [...] [31] Although I have chosen to deal with this matter on its merits, it would also have been open to me to dismiss Ms. Mutende’s application for judicial review on the grounds that she does not come before the Court with clean hands.
-
8,518.
Akinosho v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2011 FC 1194 - 2011-10-20
Federal Court DecisionsAmnesty International letters, press clippings, press card) could have been put to the Board and, therefore, could not be considered in a subsequent PRRA. The additional materials he presented dealing with the risks faced by journalists in Nigeria and his mother’s letter were found to be inapplicable to his personal [...] 1. Does an immigration officer assessing an H&C application breach procedural fairness if he does not specifically mention pertinent documentary evidence provided in support of the application, containing information relevant to the disputed facts but instead proceeds to adopt reasons from the applicant’s IRB decision
-
8,519.
Holland v. Canada (Human Rights Commission) - 2011 FC 1125 - 2011-09-30
Federal Court DecisionsOn August 2, 2010, Mr. Holland wrote to the respondent to express concern that it would not deal with the matters raised in his letter dated June 24, 2010. [...] She also submits that based on the medical reports, a fair hearing cannot occur without representation since Mr. Holland is legally disabled (Minister of Health and Community Services) v G(J), [1999] 3 SCR 46.
-
8,520.
Shotclose v. Stoney First Nation - 2011 FC 1051 - 2011-09-07
Federal Court Decisions[4] In the June 22, 2011 judgment I found that the applicants were deprived of their voting rights and denied procedural fairness by the respondents in violation of Bearspaw custom. [...] In my reasons for judgment, I held that it was not necessary to deal with those issues as the matter could be determined on customary and administrative law principles.
-
8,521.
Ramirez Aburto v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2011 FC 1049 - 2011-09-06
Federal Court Decisions[8] The issues before the Court require a deferential standard of review because they deal with the Officer’s findings of fact and weighing of the evidence. [...] [9] The Applicants submit that the reasonableness standard applies to questions of mixed fact and law and generally to the exercise of discretion, whereas the correctness standard applies to questions of law and procedural fairness issues; the Applicants cite Kastrati v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008
-
8,522.
Sivabalasuntharampillai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2011 FC 975 - 2011-08-04
Federal Court DecisionsHowever, any issues of procedural fairness, including the right to be heard and a lack of adequate reasons, will be reviewed on the correctness standard (see Khosa v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 SCR 339 at paragraph 43). [...] [24] Because of my finding on this issue, I need not deal with the remaining issue.
-
8,523.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Aziz - 2011 FCA 18 - 2011-01-19
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions20 The IAD is bestowed with a great deal of discretion in conducting appeals of removal orders. [...] [8] For the purpose of this motion, I assume without deciding that the judge may have breached a rule of procedural fairness because he did not have the benefit of submissions from the Minister when he interpreted section 52 as he did, or when he concluded as he did that the IAD was obliged to put its mind to the question
-
8,524.
Suryanti v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2010 FC 1164 - 2010-11-25
Federal Court Decisions[10] A claim that a decision-maker failed to give adequate reasons in his or her decision is a question of procedural fairness that should be reviewed on the standard of correctness (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at paragraph 50; Andryanov v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2007 FC 186, at [...] This is sufficient to allow this judicial review application without having to deal with the issue concerning the test applied by the Board for section 96 of the Act.
-
8,525.
Gravel v. Telus Communications Inc. - 2010 FC 595 - 2010-06-01
Federal Court DecisionsIn this context, the Court must consider whether the evidence will: (a) serve the interests of justice; (b) assist the Court; (c) not seriously prejudice the other side; and (d) neither deal with material which could have been made available at an earlier date, nor unduly delay the proceedings: Mazhero c. Canada (Industrial [...] Additional evidence may be admissible, however, if it describes the procedure and evidence presented to the decision-maker whose decision is under judicial review, and if it involves a breach of procedural fairness.