Advanced Search

Olde Park Construction Company Limited v. The Queen - 2009 TCC 473 - 2009-09-18

The provisions dealing with condominiums are not relevant here. [19] The provision that is relevant, s. 168(5) of the Act, provides:   [...]  [31] Paragraph 168(7)(b) applies in fairly narrow circumstances, namely in contracts for the construction, renovation or repair of real estate or vessels.

O'Hara v. The Queen - 2008 CCI 620 - 2008-11-24

[7] During the most difficult financial period for the Carlow Group , a major supplier of security equipment ceased its dealings with the companies, and I presume Carlow Group was in serious debt.   [...]  Counsel for the Minister fairly concludes that if the Appellant is found to be an employee, he is entitled to claim tax credits on account of EI and CPP, pursuant to section 118.7 of the Income Tax Act, which reads in part:

Panossian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 255 - 2008-02-26

These reasons deal with his appeal from that Decision. BACKGROUND [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Lebanon by birth.   [...]  [16] The Applicant also submits that he was owed a duty of fairness which was violated.

Boissonneault v. Canada Post Corporation - 2007 FC 1120 - 2007-10-30

In all, a fair reading of the entire proposed affidavit leads to the conclusion that it does not meet the requirements of Rule 81 and does not comply with the jurisprudence of this Court.   [...]  also important that any supplementary affidavit and supplementary record neither deal with material which could have been made available at an earlier date, nor unduly delay the proceedings.”

Hyundai Motor America v. Cross Canada Auto Body Supply (West) Limited - 2007 FC 120 - 2007-02-05

Counsel for the defendants was not prepared to deal with that issue. Because I had previously refused the defendants’ request for an adjournment on the ground that lead counsel was otherwise engaged, I considered it fair to allow the defendants a short period of time in which to provide written submissions on the point.

Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc. - 2006 FCA 167 - 2006-05-08

[20] In any event, if the material in the record is a fair representation of the financial circumstances of Vale Farms Ltd. and Mr. Halford personally, it may well prove very difficult for them to obtain a bank guarantee or letter of credit of the form sought by Seed Hawk, for the same reasons as Seed Hawk may face   [...]  Halford has volunteered certain undertakings that will preclude any dealings outside the ordinary course of business.

Cormier v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2006 FC 118 - 2006-02-02

I believe that to be a fair admission because the uncontradicted evidence before the Board established that:   [...]   of the Act was specifically relied upon by Mr. Cormier in argument before the Board, and notwithstanding that the Board in its reasons noted that it had been asked to accept the presumption of fitness, the Board did not in its reasons consider the applicability of the presumption or otherwise deal with the presumption.

Grewal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 875 - 2005-06-20

[13] In the context of this application for judicial review, I propose to deal with the following issues:   [...]  [24] In the instant case, the Applicant argues that procedural fairness is lacking due to the insufficiency of reasons.

Chopra v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2005 FC 252 - 2005-02-16

These tests involved the presentation of hypothetical problems to the candidate and they were expected to show how they, as a manager, would deal with such problems.   [...]  " [11] It was therefore appropriate for the Appeal Board to consider whether the test employed here, the MIB 810, could reasonably be considered to be a fairly accurate measure of ability to do the jobs in question.

Edmond v. The Queen - 2004 TCC 581 - 2004-08-27

[8] I can state my conclusions fairly readily. (a) The cost of moving from Mississauga to Quesnel, which the appellant claimed was $25,562 and which may have amounted to something over $20,000, is not deductible in any year because it was not in respect of an "eligible relocation" which is defined as follows in section 248   [...]  It does not however deal with the situation where a person on his way from an old residence to a new one is forced to stay temporarily but longer than anticipated in a place that cannot realistically be regarded as his ordinary residence.

Fundeanu v. The Queen - 2004 TCC 144 - 2004-03-01

The second reassessment was conducted after the Appellant requested adjustment under section 220 of the Act. The Minister's decision under the fairness provisions can only be reviewed by the Federal Court Trial Division by way of a judicial review.   [...]  [2] I will now deal with the 1998 taxation year with respect to the disallowed expenses.

Lena v. The Kent Institution - 2004 FC 192 - 2004-02-04

The case which Mr Lena brings is important to him, but it is fairly complex and the outcome, after the expenditure of judicial resources and taxpayers' money, would have virtually no practical effect on the parties.   [...]  In the present instance the fact that the matter is moot, coupled with an absence of an adversarial context and the concern for judicial economy, overbear the fact that the Court would not be departing from its fundamental role in dealing with the application of Mr Lena.

Naik v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2003 FCT 783 - 2003-06-26

The applicant also argues that the CHRC failed to assess the complaint fully and in accordance with all provisions of the Act and human rights law, adding that such failure constituted a denial of procedural fairness.   [...]  I would, however, go a great deal further. The question as to who is the "victim" of an alleged discriminatory practice is almost wholly one of fact.