Advanced Search

P.H. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2020 FC 393 - 2020-03-19

They are federal statutes dealing with matters falling within the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over criminal law.   [...]  [57] It is unnecessary for me to decide whether the principles of judicial comity apply in this instance since I am of the view that the considerations that underlie judicial comity – deference and respect, order and fairness, stability and unity – nevertheless apply in this case.   [...]  The report deals generally with the impact of the court proceedings on the Applicant and the risk of recidivism rather than dealing specifically with the impacts of a criminal record.

Harry Sargeant III v. Al-Saleh - 2014 FCA 302 - 2014-12-19

Consequently, the Appellant says that the Judge erred when she did not deal with his motion on a de novo basis.   [...]  b) de la publicité à faire à leur intention; (c) the time within which claimants must file their claims; and   [...]  [70] However, when I attempted to deal with the merits of the claim, I realized that I could not do so because of the state of the evidentiary record.

Craig v. The Queen - 2009 TCC 617 - 2009-12-17

He retained the services of a trainer to facilitate his entry into this new venture and continued to retain such services under a fairly comprehensive arrangement which incorporated the provision of all required maintenance of the horses as well as their training;   [...]  In spite of the anomalies that arise in dealing with section 31, the jurisprudence invoking a sideline business restriction construction of the section is well-ingrained in the law.   [...]  [86] However, dealing with this concern in this manner does not seem entirely satisfactory.

Medeiros v. Echum - 2001 FCT 1318 - 2001-11-30

[23] I start from the proposition that a band council has a legal obligation to exercise its powers fairly and with an even hand, and is not entitled to make arbitrary decisions that benefit one group of members to the exclusion of another group.   [...]  [17] On the fax cover sheet of his October 25, 1996 letter to Laura Medeiros, Chief Echum said he would only be dealing with the Chief and Council of the Hornepayne First Nation.   [...]  [46] He concludes by expressing his opinion, after the recognitions of the Hornepayne First Nation he cited, other First Nations would feel obligated to deal with Hornepayne First Nation on a government-government basis.

Canada v. Hudson - 2024 FCA 33 - 2024-02-20

C.Q.L.R., c. C-12; was systemically negligent; failed to apply the provisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10, its regulations, and the Code of Conduct promulgated under the RCMP Act in a fair manner; and failed to act honourably and in good faith when dealing with Indigenous class members.   [...]  This reflects the public interest in proceedings moving in an efficient, timely, and fair manner, and avoiding the wasteful use of judicial resources: Mylan at para. 5; Coote at para. 13; Clayton at para. 28.   [...]  [63] Read fairly, the motion judge’s reasons do not conflate systemic discrimination with implicit discrimination.

Saltstream Engineering Ltd. v. Canada (Fisheries, Oceans and Coast Guard) - 2022 FC 621 - 2022-04-27

[31] Mr. Smeal gave a detailed description of the company’s fish farming operation, which deals only with the production of Chinook salmon.   [...]  ...[W]hen a government body makes a decision regarding an individual, particularly where the individual has much at stake, the decision-maker does not act fairly when basing its decision, at least to some degree, on the desire to quiet the criticism of others.   [...]  [82] I note that the decision in Keating, supra involved issues of procedural fairness which are not engaged in this case.

Danyi v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2017 FC 112 - 2017-01-30

But, in my view, this debate is of no moment where we are dealing with decisions that are the product of “fettered discretions.” The result is the same.   [...]  [20] The Applicants argue that the Officer did not give due consideration to Alex’s best interests because, in view of Joarder v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 230 at para 3, 146 ACWS (3d) 305 [Joarder], “there is a requirement that the immediate interests of affected children be treated fairly   [...]  [35] The jurisprudence has established that enforcement officers are required to consider the short-term best interests of a child in a fair and sensitive manner (see: Joarder at para 3; Kampemana at para 34).

Saint Honore Cake Shop Limited v. Cheung's Bakery Products ltd. - 2013 FC 935 - 2013-09-05

- While Ms. Kwan deals with many constituents who speak Chinese, she has no knowledge as to how many of the Chinese-Canadians with whom she meets can read and understand Chinese characters; and   [...]  (2) L’emploi d’une marque de commerce crée de la confusion avec une autre marque de commerce lorsque l’emploi des deux marques de commerce dans la même région serait susceptible de faire conclure que les marchandises liées à ces marques de commerce sont fabriquées, vendues, données à bail ou louées, ou que les services liés  [...]  (3) L’emploi d’une marque de commerce crée de la confusion avec un nom commercial, lorsque l’emploi des deux dans la même région serait susceptible de faire conclure que les marchandises liées à cette marque et les marchandises liées à l’entreprise poursuivie sous ce nom sont fabriquées, vendues, données à bail ou louées,

Dufour v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2011 FC 138 - 2011-02-08

• [9] On page 766 of the decision in ITO-Int’l Terminal Operators v. Miida Electronics, [1986] 1 SCR 752, the Supreme Court of Canada outlines the applicable criteria for determining whether the Federal Court has the jurisdiction to deal with a given case.   [...]  (b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe;   [...]  f) 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;

Hewlett Packard (Canada) Ltd. v. Canada - 2004 FCA 240 - 2004-06-21

gaining or producing income, has begun at a later time to use it for some other purpose, the taxpayer shall be deemed to have disposed of it at that later time for proceeds of disposition equal to its fair market value at that time and to have reacquired it immediately thereafter at a cost equal to that fair market value;   [...]  [26] The question relating to the change of use can be disposed of fairly quickly.   [...]  [42] Although this provision is found in subdivision C dealing with capital gains, it is also applied with respect to CCA and specifically paragraph 13(21)(c), the provision with which we are concerned.

Lussier v. The Queen - 1999-07-16

It should be noted that tax administration in Canada is based on the principle of self-assessment and that it is perfectly reasonable and fair for taxpayers to be allowed to correct mistakes that have crept into their tax returns.   [...]  [29] To determine whether this argument is correct, I consider it helpful to compare the wording of subsection 104(13.1) of the Act with that of the following subsection, 104(14), which deals with elections made by a trust and a preferred beneficiary.   [...]  I consider what Robertson J.A. said in Nassau, supra, to be quite apt here: “It cannot be doubted that the refusal of the Minister to accede to Nassau’s request seems antithetical to elemental concepts of fairness” (paragraph 29, p. 297).

Reano v. Jennie W (The Ship) - 1997-12-11

We are aware of the situation, but at the same time we believe the figures claimed are not fair.   [...]  Counsel for the Plaintiffs acted with the utmost of fairness in keeping the Defendant informed at all times with respect to the proceedings.   [...]  It seems to me that the only fair way of ascertaining the amounts truly owing is by way of a reference pursuant to Rules 433(2)15 and 500.

Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 147 - 2022-02-07

The Officer added that Mr. Singh’s establishment is fairly typical of a person living in Canada for as long as Mr. Singh has.   [...]  A reviewing court must show deference and intervene “only where it is truly necessary to do so in order to safeguard the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative process” (Vavilov at para 13).   [...]  The passages of the decision pertaining to the humanitarian and compassionate circumstances dealing with Mr. Singh’s establishment in Canada, the hardship of his return to India or the best interests of his grandchildren illustrate the failures on the part of the Officer.