11,312 result(s)
-
8,526.
Olde Park Construction Company Limited v. The Queen - 2009 TCC 473 - 2009-09-18
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsThe 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.
-
8,527.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Contreras Garcia - 2009 FC 91 - 2009-01-29
Federal Court DecisionsThe first part deals with the question of the respondent’s exclusion under section 98 of the Act, raised by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. [...] * * * * * * * * [12] Procedural fairness requires that the RPD provide adequate reasons for its decision, which is determined on a correctness standard (C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Charles, 2007 FC 1146, [2007] F.C.J. No. 1493 (QL)).
-
8,528.
O'Hara v. The Queen - 2008 CCI 620 - 2008-11-24
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[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:
-
8,529.
Locher Evers International v. Canada Garlic Distribution Inc - 2008 FC 319 - 2008-03-07
Federal Court Decisionsf) une demande d’indemnisation, fondée sur une convention relative au transport par navire de marchandises couvertes par un connaissement direct ou devant en faire l’objet, pour la perte ou l’avarie de marchandises en cours de route; [...] the impugned paragraphs do not disclose a reasonable cause of action, the motion goes to the very heart of the action itself and it is appropriate that the Court should be able to deal with matters of that sort at any stage with perhaps only cost consequences flowing if the person making the motion does so on a late basis.
-
8,530.
Panossian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 255 - 2008-02-26
Federal Court DecisionsThese 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.
-
8,531.
Demarchi v. The Queen - 2007 TCC 697 - 2007-11-02
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsIn fairness, there may have been an element of business, but so much of it appears to be personal that I cannot even guess what portion may be business related. [...] I am of course not talking about similar fact evidence in criminal law, about which there is a great deal of jurisprudence.
-
8,532.
Boissonneault v. Canada Post Corporation - 2007 FC 1120 - 2007-10-30
Federal Court DecisionsIn 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.”
-
8,533.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Renaud - 2007 FCA 328 - 2007-10-17
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsHowever, before the Umpire, the Commission withdrew the appeal dealing with the second benefit period established on September 28, 2003. [...] It is unfortunate that another hearing must be held with the costs and inconvenience entailed, but absent an agreement, this is the only fair solution for the two parties.
-
8,534.
Hyundai Motor America v. Cross Canada Auto Body Supply (West) Limited - 2007 FC 120 - 2007-02-05
Federal Court DecisionsCounsel 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.
-
8,535.
Fang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 961 - 2006-08-10
Federal Court Decisions[8] The Applicant argues that the PRRA process with an analysis of risk of return does not respect the rules of fairness. [...] [9] The Applicant failed to demonstrate that the tri-partite test established by the Federal Court of Appeal to deal with motions to stay the execution of removal orders was met.
-
8,536.
Halford v. Seed Hawk Inc. - 2006 FCA 167 - 2006-05-08
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[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.
-
8,537.
Wu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 513 - 2006-04-26
Federal Court Decisions[10] In a further memorandum of argument filed after leave on this application for leave and judicial review was granted, counsel raised on behalf of the Applicant the issue of whether or not the RPD denied fairness or natural justice to the Applicant in conducting the hearing before it on the basis of "reverse order [...] [11] I will deal first, and briefly, with the issue of reverse order questioning.
-
8,538.
Cormier v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2006 FC 118 - 2006-02-02
Federal Court DecisionsI 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.
-
8,539.
Matti v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 1561 - 2005-11-18
Federal Court Decisionsc) that there was a breach of procedural fairness or natural justice as the decision appears to have been made by someone in the war crimes office rather than by the visa officer. [...] A Court, in reviewing a decision of the Board in circumstances such as this, must deal with factual findings on a basis as to whether they are patently unreasonable; legal findings are to be reviewed on the basis of correctness.
-
8,540.
Grewal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 875 - 2005-06-20
Federal Court Decisions[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.
-
8,541.
Latham v. Saskatchewan Penitentiary Disciplinary Board - 2005 FC 266 - 2005-02-18
Federal Court Decisions43. (1) L'accusation d'infraction disciplinaire est instruite conformément à la procédure réglementaire et doit notamment faire l'objet d'une audition conforme aux règlements. [...] It moves the focus from the Applicant to the Manager and calls for evidence and/or submissions dealing with his reaction and whether violence would have been likely.
-
8,542.
Chopra v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2005 FC 252 - 2005-02-16
Federal Court DecisionsThese 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.
-
8,543.
HB Lynch Investments Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Public Works) - 2004 FCA 334 - 2004-10-05
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions6. The Honourable Justice made errors of law and palpable and overriding errors of fact in concluding that the Respondent PWGSC treated the Appellant's two Offers fairly and equally. [...] A significant part of the case in the Federal Court deals with the appropriate standard to be applied by Crown officials in deciding whether a bid is compliant.
-
8,544.
Edmond v. The Queen - 2004 TCC 581 - 2004-08-27
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[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.
-
8,545.
Brookfield Lepage Johnson Controls Facility Management Services v. Canada (Minister of Public Works and Government Services) - 2004 FCA 214 - 2004-05-31
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions[12] Counsel for the Attorney General points out that, on a fair reading of the Judge's reasons as a whole, she was not persuaded that the evidence was sufficient to enable BLJC to discharge the onus of proving that the records fell within any of the exemptions in section 20 from the general duty to disclose imposed by the [...] Judges are surely to be given credit for not intending to contradict themselves in consecutive sentences, especially when, in all other respects, their reasons, including those dealing with paragraph 20(1)(c), are cogent and careful and, apparently, not thought by experienced counsel to provide any basis for an appeal.
-
8,546.
Fundeanu v. The Queen - 2004 TCC 144 - 2004-03-01
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsThe 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.
-
8,547.
Luswa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2004 FC 289 - 2004-02-26
Federal Court Decisions[25] In light of my conclusions with respect to the first issue raised by the female applicant, it is unnecessary to deal with the procedural fairness question arising out of her exclusion from the hearing room.
-
8,548.
Lena v. The Kent Institution - 2004 FC 192 - 2004-02-04
Federal Court DecisionsThe 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.
-
8,549.
Neal v. The Queen - 2004 TCC 21 - 2004-01-08
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsThis result was not arrived at without a great deal of effort and expense. [...] Many of those involve conclusions of law which, of course, should not be pleaded as though they were factual.[3] However, I think it is a fair conclusion to draw from paragraph 13 of the Respondent's Reply that the reassessments were motivated principally by two factors.
-
8,550.
Naik v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2003 FCT 783 - 2003-06-26
Federal Court DecisionsThe 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.