Advanced Search

Emerson Electric Co. v. Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited - 2016 FC 308 - 2016-03-10

I think it is fair to say that the parties provided contrasting interpretations of the conclusions to be drawn from these decisions.   [...]  In both cases it was clear that the courts were dealing with “bare allegations” in pleadings which were unsustainable due to the lack of material supporting facts.

Genu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 129 - 2015-02-03

[15] The RAD began by dealing with the preliminary issues related to its jurisdiction and the scope of the appeal before it.   [...]  [51] Acting as the RPD did in this case is, in my opinion, entirely consistent with one of the objectives of the IRPA, namely, to establish fair and efficient procedures that will maintain the integrity of this system, while upholding Canada’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings.

Ratiopharm Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2014 FC 502 - 2014-05-27

Therefore, I see no basis for departing from the conclusion reached in Manitoba Society of Seniors Inc that the provisions of the Patent Act dealing with patented medicines, properly interpreted, fall within federal jurisdiction over patents of invention; they are constitutional.   [...]  92. Dans chaque province la législature pourra exclusivement faire des lois relatives aux matières tombant dans les catégories de sujets ci-dessous énumérés, savoir :

Connolly v. The Queen - 2014 TCC 55 - 2014-02-20

(b) The transferor and transferee must not have been dealing at arm’s length;   [...]  [34] A loan can be consideration for the purposes of subsection 160(1) but the onus was on the Appellant to demonstrate that a loan existed at the time of transfer, and the fair market value of that loan.

Acklands-Grainger Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2012 FCA 298 - 2012-11-19

In this case, there was no dispute as to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with the Acklands complaint.   [...]  ¶77. Therefore, while the trade agreements impose fairness and transparency obligations upon government entities, the Tribunal is of the view that these obligations cannot be interpreted in a fashion that would require the government to adopt tendering procedures that seek to eliminate the effects of any natural or

Marma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 777 - 2012-06-19

[21] The applicants raised several issues, including the Board’s alleged failures to deal with the risk associated with the fact that the applicants’ father has been granted refugee status in Canada some years earlier, and the changing conditions in Syria.   [...]  [27] Furthermore, the applicants cite Neheid v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 846, which found that “there was a breach of fairness by reason of unreasonable translation which was material to the Board's decision.” In that decision, the Court cited Singh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and

Spidel v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2012 FC 54 - 2012-01-17

It was not unreasonable, therefore, for the Commissioner to deal with the validity of the policy itself, leaving the question whether there were appropriate alternatives in individual cases such as Mr. Spidel’s to a separate inquiry.   [...]  (g) that correctional decisions be made in a forthright and fair manner, with access by the offender to an effective grievance procedure;

Lee v. The Queen - 2011 TCC 337 - 2011-06-29

[14] Accordingly, I will deal only with the subpoena concerning Ms. Mohamed.   [...]  It is fairly clear to me that the Appellant accuses Mr. Mohamed and/or his wife as being a source of his tax problems and they would both likely be hostile witnesses in respect of the Appellant’s case.

Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Nu-Pharm Inc. - 2011 FC 255 - 2011-03-03

[6] The purpose of pleadings is to define the question in controversy between the litigants and to give the defendant fair notice of the case to be met (Weatherall v Canada (AG), [1989] 1 FC 18, 86 NR 168 at paragraph 14).   [...]  The respondent maintains that this is because the argument was not put to the Federal Court Judge and urges us not to deal with this argument on that ground.The fact that the argument was not addressed by the Federal Court Judge does suggest that it was not made or insisted upon by the appellants.

Aleksic v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2010 FC 1285 - 2010-12-14

[31] The Applicant submits that the IAD ignored the evidence of hardship her father would face with air travel, and the financial impact she would deal with if she had to move back to Serbia to be with her parents.   [...]  6. Is it the visa officer or the medical officer that needs to resolve all of the medical and non-medical information contained in the fairness letter?

Saskferco Products ULC v. Canada - 2008 FCA 297 - 2008-10-06

[26] The legal issue to be decided in this appeal is fairly narrow. Saskferco does not base its argument on the interpretation of a provision of the Income Tax Act. It is conceded that subsection 39(2), which deems foreign exchange losses to be on capital account, only applies if the underlying transaction in connection   [...]  Hence, courts should approach with considerable scepticism arguments based solely on general principle, even where, as here, the Income Tax Act does not deal comprehensively with an issue.

Moss v. Canada - 2008 FC 768 - 2008-06-19

Of particular concern is the portion of the contracts referred to as settlement options which deal with the types of benefits which can be paid to the holder upon maturity.   [...]  [13] Given that Ms. Moss is an unrepresented litigant and the present litigation proceeded as a simplified action, I find that a fair and just award of costs in favour of Minister be limited to the all encompassing amount of $1,000.

Kikot v. The Queen - 2008 TCC 38 - 2008-01-23

I will deal with the remaining years individually. [25] For 1998 he claimed $33,203 in employment expenses.   [...]  Although case law is clear to the effect that the complexity of one’s tax issues is insufficient reason for not abiding by the requirements of the Act, in this instance common sense and fairness must come into play.