Advanced Search

Voltage Picture LLC v. John Doe - 2014 FC 161 - 2015-02-16

[36] There is developing jurisprudence in Canada and in this Court dealing with Norwich Orders.   [...]  d). that fairness requires the information be provided prior to trial; and,   [...]  Accordingly, in my judgment, to make such an order would not proportionately and fairly balance the interests of the Other Claimants with the Intended Defendants' interests.

Dysert v. The Queen - 2013 TCC 57 - 2013-02-21

There are a number of leading and oft-quoted cases dealing with the meaning to be given to the terms resident and ordinarily resident and some are quoted from, below.   [...]  Section 116 of the Act and Part XIII deal with these cases. The former provision applies when a non-resident sells property and the latter when a non-resident collects, among other things, rental income.   [...]  Subsection 250(5) applies notwithstanding any other provision of the ITA, including paragraph 250(1)(a) dealing with sojourners (or subsection 250(3) dealing with factual residents).

Glaxosmithkline Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - 2003 FC 1055 - 2003-09-10

(3) Sous réserve du paragraphe (4), la personne qui soumet une liste de brevets doit le faire au moment du dépôt de la demande d'avis de conformité.   [...]  In order to distinguish the facts of the present case from the decision in Novapharm,supra, GSK argues that, in Novapharm, supra, Hugessen J. was dealing with the way that patents are listed in the first place in accordance with section 4 of the Regulations.   [...]  In this instance, we are dealing with supplemental submissions which, as the case law makes clear, are eligible for inclusion on the Register and encompass the original 08356 submission made June 11, 1990.

3510395 Canada Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2020 FCA 103 - 2020-06-05

[12] The CRTC found that the main thrust of the Act “deals with electronic commerce” (Constitutional Decision at para. 43).   [...]  (iii) pour faire valoir un droit ou exécuter une obligation juridique, une ordonnance judiciaire, un jugement ou un tarif,   [...]  (iv) pour faire valoir un droit découlant d’une règle de droit fédérale, provinciale, municipale ou étrangère;

Coldwater First Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2020 FCA 34 - 2020-02-04

But to make that sort of point “fairly arguable,” there must be at least a shred of evidence to support it.   [...]  This issue is not “fairly arguable.” In law, statements of this sort do not trigger disqualifying bias.   [...]  That said, we are dealing with a constitutional duty of high significance to Indigenous peoples and indeed the country as a whole.

Sidhu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 504 - 2023-04-11

• 1)Did the Officer err in law or breach procedural fairness by not properly considering the Applicant’s request for Temporary Resident Permits?   [...]  This means that decision-makers must do more than simply state that the interests of a child have been taken into account: the BIOC must be examined with a great deal of attention in light of all the evidence [the Supreme Court itself italicizes the word “all”].

Kovacs v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 1532 - 2022-11-10

The reviewing court must adopt an attitude of restraint 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).   [...]  [30] The Federal Court of Appeal also stated that when dealing with cessation cases, the RPD must provide “reasoned explanation concerning the relevant evidence and key issues, including the key arguments made by the parties” (Camayo FCA at para 82, citing Sexsmith v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 111 at para 36).

Lim v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2022 FC 140 - 2022-02-04

To have disciplinary proceedings conducted by a judge’s peers offers the guarantees of expertise and fairness that judicial officers are sensitive to, while avoiding the potential perception of bias or conflict that could arise if judges were to sit in court regularly in judgment of each other.   [...]  In addition, the Applicant has filed a copy of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Legare dealing with the interpretation of the charge of “luring of a child” under subsection 172.1(1)(c) CCC.

Duhamel v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2021 FC 1255 - 2021-11-19

[15] The reasonableness standard is a deferential form of review meant to ensure that “courts intervene in administrative matters only where it is truly necessary to do so in order to safeguard the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative process” (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov,   [...]  [16] The Respondent submits that decisions of judicial councils are to be reviewed “with a great deal of deference.” In Moreau-Bérubé v New Brunswick (Judicial Council), 2002 SCC 11, Justice Arbour stated that “[j]udicial councils may be viewed as unique not only amongst administrative tribunals but even amongst

Ouimet v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2021 FCA 200 - 2021-10-15

It would therefore be unfair to consider it because the respondent did not have the opportunity to deal with it properly.   [...]   under the Act. Their main purpose is to provide some consistency when an agreement has been reached with a province that has adopted its own pregnancy or childcare benefits plan and to ensure fairness between residents of different provinces: see Summary of the Regulatory Impact Study, Respondent’s Record, at page 2573.

Soulliere v. The Queen - 2020 TCC 67 - 2020-07-23

[17] Prior to the existence of Metro 2010, the appellant’s father had operated a similar business which originally began in the 1960s with two food trucks and eventually grew into a fairly large and quite successful operation.   [...]  However, I will deal briefly with these questions. The first two are questions of fact while the third is essentially a question of law given the facts.

Gonzales v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) - 2019 FC 519 - 2019-04-24

Subsection 25(1) provides the Minister a mechanism to deal with exceptional circumstances.   [...]  In failing to do so, that officer breached the Applicant’s right to procedural fairness.

Al-Abayechi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 360 - 2018-04-09

[12] A correctness standard of review applies to the Applicant’s allegations that their former consultant is incompetent, as this issue “goes to the Applicant’s right to fully present his case, which is an issue of procedural fairness”: Galyas v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 250 at para 27.   [...]  If the Applicant chooses to hire an immigration consultant rather than a member of the immigration bar, he has to deal with the consequences.