Advanced Search

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Sohail - 2017 FC 995 - 2017-11-03

[14] I will first deal with the preliminary issue raised by Ms. Sohail.   [...]  These exceptions include: (i) an affidavit providing general background assisting in understanding the issues relevant to the judicial review; (ii) an affidavit necessary to bring evidence on procedural defects or a breach of procedural fairness; and (iii) an affidavit highlighting the complete absence of evidence before   [...]  I accept that the provisions dealing with immigration sponsorship by family members in the IRPA and the Regulations reflect both the objective of family reunification, and the intention of the legislator to prevent adoptions made for immigration purposes.

Wang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2017 FC 19 - 2017-01-06

This kind of reasoning process was most recently rejected by Mr. Justice Boswell in Ren v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1402 who found at paragraph 25 that “the RPD has to deal separately and squarely with the documentary evidence before coming to an overall credibility finding” [emphasis in original].   [...]  The RPD did not deal separately with the Church letter. It made a series of rolling credibility findings, each following and justifying the other.   [...]  While the Applicant did not argue a breach of procedural fairness, I have concerns about the way that the RPD, on multiple occasions, lost track of its question and then challenged the Applicant on non-existent contradictions or evasiveness.

Li v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2016 FC 451 - 2016-04-21

Those interests must be "well identified and defined" and examined "with a great deal of attention" in light of all the evidence: Legault v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 4 F.C. 358 (C.A.), at paras. 12 and 31; Kolosovs v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 323 F.T.R. 181, at paras.  [...]  a) directement ou indirectement, faire une présentation erronée sur un fait important quant à un objet pertinent, ou une réticence sur ce fait, ce qui entraîne ou risque d’entraîner une erreur dans l’application de la présente loi;   [...]  Secondly, the IAD unreasonably considered the best interests of the, then, unborn child by simply stating that the child’s interests had been taken into consideration; that is not sufficient; the IAD had the obligation to identify, define and examine, “with a great deal of attention”, in light of the evidence the unborn

Ren v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1402 - 2015-12-18

[22] In this case, while some of the RPD’s questions about the Applicant’s faith appear basic or fair, most of the questions in this regard assess the correctness of the Applicant’s theological knowledge, so much so that the RPD lost sight of the central question of the genuineness or sincerity of the Applicant’s beliefs.   [...]  On the contrary, the RPD has to deal separately and squarely with the documentary evidence before coming to an overall credibility finding.   [...]  To properly do so, it was necessary for the RPD to first deal with the authenticity of the documentary evidence in its own right.

Lavigne v. Pare - 2015 FC 631 - 2015-05-13

According to the plaintiff, the Court must also consider the fairness of these prior proceedings before concluding that he is a vexatious litigant.   [...]  • T-1507-07 (Lavigne v Canada Post Corporation): the plaintiff filed a notice of application for judicial review of a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission not to deal with a complaint.   [...]  At the risk of repeating myself, for example, one grievance, three complaints before the CHRC, six actions in the Federal Court (T-831-06, T-206-07, T-1507-07, T-105-10, T-107-10 and T-1632-13) and two actions in the Superior Court all deal with the same allegations of discrimination, harassment, discriminatory suspension

Speciale v. The Queen - 2013 TCC 254 - 2013-08-13

It is not fair to disallow these credits. [65] There were no facts presented to support the presumptions contained in the Amended Reply.   [...]  It must be made to a recipient who was dealing with the taxpayer at arm’s length.   [...]  [85] In Lau, it was decided that where partners are dealing with third parties at non-arm’s length they must be put on notice.

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Health) - 2012 FCA 322 - 2012-12-07

In his view, the application involved “a fairness challenge to three discrete administrative decisions” (reasons, paragraph 18), and Apotex’ position was a “colourable device intended to permit Apotex to avoid violating both the letter and the spirit of [sub]section 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act and Rule 302” (reasons,   [...]  The underlying consideration, however, which, as it seems to me, must be borne in mind in dealing with any application of this kind, is whether, in the circumstances presented, to do justice between the parties calls for the grant of the extension.   [...]   considerations as ‘relevant’ or irrelevant to its exercise.” The Court rejected the proposition that the Minister’s discretion was, as a matter of statutory construction, sufficiently broad to embrace considerations other than those dealing with safety and efficacy (reasons, Federal Court of Appeal at paragraph 65).

Hershkovitz v. Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd. - 2010 FCA 190 - 2010-07-19

[5] In order to understand the issues in this case and to understand the decision of the Federal Court, it is necessary to deal briefly with some basic questions.   [...]  However, when the appellants filed the disclaimer to deal with the overbreadth of the original '670 patent, they were admitting that claims in the patent were overbroad.   [...]  Such a result does not seem fair, consistent with the orderly functioning of the Act, nor compatible with the bargain that lies at the heart of our patent system.

Long v. The Queen - 2010 TCC 197 - 2010-04-14

Although he was dealing with the then Rule 448 of the Federal Court Rules, it is similar to our present Rule 82.   [...]  I have put in the words "either directly or indirectly," because, as it seems to me, a document can properly be said to contain information which may enable the party requiring the affidavit either to advance his own case or to damage the case of his adversary, if it is a document which may fairly lead him to a train of   [...]  [25] The Respondent argued that the Appellant has alternate viable avenues to obtain the requested information and documents or to deal with his other concerns and that these factors should be a consideration in deciding if full disclosure under Rule 82 is appropriate.

Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Limited - 2009 FC 117 - 2009-02-03

[23] Before dealing with the proposed amendments, it is worthwhile to review the nature of the document for which leave to amend is being sought.   [...]  There have been numerous motions and hearings relating to discovery, and an additional week has been set aside in March 2009 to deal with interlocutory motions.   [...]  On the understanding that Novopharm will be given full opportunity to conduct discovery of GSK with respect to the Royalty Amendment, the factual issue raised by the proposed amendment can be fairly and properly litigated and determined at the reference.

Dixon v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2008 FC 889 - 2008-07-18

[7] The relevant provisions of the Act dealing with day parole that must be considered in this application are subsections 122(1), 122(4) and 123(5), which read as follows:   [...]  The relevant provision of the Regulations dealing with day parole that is relevant to this application is subsection 157(2), which reads as follows:   [...]  157.(2) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), la Commission doit examiner le cas du délinquant qui présente une demande de mise en semi-liberté conformément au paragraphe (1) dans les six mois suivant la réception de la demande, mais elle n'est pas tenue de le faire plus de deux mois avant la date de l'admissibilité du délinquant

Merchant Law Group v. The Queen - 2008 TCC 337 - 2008-06-13

Of the six issues before the Court (there were really only 5, as issue 1 and 3 were related), the Appellant was successful in three of them, one of which was conceded in the course of the Appellant’s closing argument, the second one, namely the one dealing with legal disbursements made in an agent capacity should not have   [...]  This case required a fair amount of preparation for the trial. It was complex in terms of numbers and co-relating documents that needed to be presented to assure a proper evidentiary flow.   [...]  The issue with respect to the entitlement to additional ITCs and the issue dealing with the alleged errors in the CRA audit were also not complex matters.

Johnson v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2007 FC 1021 - 2007-10-04

5. The settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. It provides financial compensation, renewed employment, and guaranteed training and counselling for the applicant.   [...]  As noted in Loyer v. Air Canada, [2006] F.C.J. No. 1473 at paragraph 47, 2006 FC 1172, the mandate of the Commission “requires that it deal, on a daily basis, with examination and resolution of human rights complaints.” Thus, it appears that issues of settlement appear to fall directly within the expertise of the   [...]  [40] It appears that Parliament’s intent was to give the Commission a great deal of discretion under section 48 in approving or rejecting settlements.