11,309 result(s)
-
101.
Valookaran v. Royal Bank of Canada - 2011 FC 276 - 2011-03-09
Federal Court Decisions[8] It is useful to briefly describe the overall scheme of the Act in dealing with complaints. [...] In carrying out this function, the Commission must comply with the rules of procedural fairness. [...] [15] Procedural fairness does not require the Commission to undergo a lengthy analysis of the complaint at the initial stages.
-
102.
Jazz Air LP v. Toronto Port Authority - 2006 FC 904 - 2006-07-20
Federal Court Decisions(c) discouraging or precluding fair, reasonable and competitive access by airline users of the Toronto City Centre Airport; and/or [...] in dealing with the applicant; that they threatened to eliminate its access to the Toronto Island Airport; that they failed to accommodate competing airlines in violation of the Competition Act by entering into agreements with Porter Airlines Inc.; that they breached their common law and statutory obligation to act fairly. [...] As pointed out by the respondents, such actions and decisions go back at least 16 years in its dealing with the applicant.
-
103.
Crowchild v. Tsuut'ina Nation - 2017 FC 861 - 2017-10-06
Federal Court Decisions(ii) Were the decisions made in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness? [...] While the Federal Court of Appeal has indicated that the matter is not finally settled (Vavilov v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FCA 132 at para 13), I do not need to deal with this question since I find that there were breaches of procedural fairness whether the standard is one of correctness or reasonableness. [...] All that she is seeking is a fair process and the opportunity to state her case.
-
104.
Higgins v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2016 FC 32 - 2016-01-08
Federal Court Decisions[35] Dealing with the decision to remove the Applicant from his unit, the CFGB again found the situation had been poorly handled and was not properly justified as a proper and fair investigation had not been made. [...] [43] With respect to procedural fairness, the CDS found the Applicant had been treated fairly throughout. [...] C. Procedural Fairness [57] The Applicant has alleged there was a breach of fairness to him because he did not know the particulars of the allegations against him.
-
105.
Crawler v. Wesley First Nation - 2016 FC 385 - 2016-04-08
Federal Court DecisionsThis amounts to a breach of procedural fairness that renders the decision invalid; [...] If there is some reason why reasons or authorization cannot be sought in advance, then Council can deal with it at subsequent meetings. [...] Chief and Council, pursuant to its customs and practices, has a procedure to deal with absences from Chief and Council meetings.
-
106.
Comstock v. Public Service Alliance of Canada - 2007 FC 335 - 2007-03-30
Federal Court Decisions- first, did the Commission breach the Applicant’s rights to procedural fairness; [...] [37] Counsel for the Applicant further urges that an important requirement of procedural fairness is that the Commission have an adequate and fair basis upon which to evaluate whether [...] [43] Counsel for the Applicant urges that the Commission had a prima facie duty to deal with
-
107.
Priest v. Canada (Revenue Agency) - 2023 FC 1537 - 2023-11-21
Federal Court DecisionsThe Officer also noted that the Respondent did not consider it prejudicial to deal with those complaints. [...] Commission to deal with complaint 41 (1) Subject to section 40, the Commission shall deal with any complaint filed with it unless in respect of that complaint it appears to the Commission that [...] B. Procedural fairness [31] Mr. Priest argues that the Decision was procedurally unfair.
-
108.
Brassard v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2015 FC 1355 - 2015-12-08
Federal Court DecisionsThe CHRC therefore decided to not deal with the complaints pursuant to article 41(1)(d) of the Act. [...] [20] Ms. Brassard is applying for judicial review of the CHRC decision to refuse to deal with her complaints. [...] It was therefore reasonable to not deal with the complaint before the CHRC.
-
109.
Krauss v. The Queen - 2009 TCC 597 - 2009-11-19
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[6] I will deal with one fact situation and issue at a time, commencing with the 5175 Yonge Street property. [...] After the property is disposed of, all its dealings can be advanced to determine whether the taxpayer was a trader or investor. [...] The sale to the corporation in fact terminated the Appellant’s dealings with 5175 Yonge Street, and the question whether she was dealing with it as inventory or capital can be examined with the evidence between 1987 and 1992.
-
110.
Pezzente v. Rogers Communications Inc. - 2005 FC 953 - 2005-07-08
Federal Court DecisionsI find that once the issue of procedural fairness is dealt with separately, the remaining issues will be reviewed on the basis of patent unreasonableness, as the arguments raised by the applicant deal with the approach and methodology used by the Commission and its investigators in dismissing the complaints. [...] [9] However, in issues dealing with procedural fairness, I am simply to determine whether or not those principles were breached: [...] Secondly, I find that the Commission failed to deal with the applicant's complaints as a whole, choosing rather to deal with one of the many issues raised.
-
111.
Murray v. Canada (Human Rights Commission) - 2014 FC 139 - 2014-02-11
Federal Court Decisions[11] First, the Tribunal concluded that it had jurisdiction to deal with the motion in advance of a full hearing on the merits. [...] [...] 42. The second way in which the operation of issue estoppel may be unfair is not so much concerned with the fairness of the prior proceedings but with the fairness of using their results to preclude the subsequent proceedings. [...] In my view, Figliola did not overturn the principle of fairness enunciated in Danyluk and Toronto.
-
112.
Anderson v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2018 FC 834 - 2018-08-14
Federal Court DecisionsIf not, is the process set up to be fair to both the complainant and respondent? [...] Has the Commission breached the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness by failing to issue reasons for the Decision? [...] There is no breach of procedural fairness or violation of the principles of natural justice.
-
113.
Fannon v. Canada (Revenue Agency) - 2017 FC 58 - 2017-01-19
Federal Court Decisions[45] The procedural fairness issue in this case arises in connection with an allegation of Commission staff bias against the Applicant. [...] As noted above, procedural fairness issues are reviewed on the correctness standard. [...] Commission to deal with complaint Irrecevabilité 41 (1) Subject to section 40, the Commission shall deal with any complaint filed with it unless in respect of that complaint it appears to the Commission that
-
114.
Colubriale v. Canada - 2005 FCA 329 - 2005-10-14
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions. . . 47 While the determination of fair market value presupposes a transaction between people who are dealing with each other at arm’s length, I agree with the view that this question must be answered by looking at the particular circumstances of a given case, and not by reference to the presumption stated in s. 251(1)(a) [...] (a) where a taxpayer has acquired anything from a person with whom the taxpayer was not dealing at arm’s length at an amount in excess of the fair market value thereof at the time the taxpayer so acquired it, the taxpayer shall be deemed to have acquired it at that fair market value; [...] (i) to a person with whom the taxpayer was not dealing at arm’s length for no proceeds or for proceeds less than the fair market value thereof at the time the taxpayer so disposed of it,
-
115.
Canada (Minister of Environment Canada) v. Hutchinson - 2003 FCA 133 - 2003-03-14
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsThe section dealing with the respondent's work history ended with this paragraph: [...] Both parties asked that we deal with all issues so as to avoid the delay and expense of referring the matter back to the Trial Division in the event that we found for the appellant on the question of procedural fairness. [...] I find no breach of any duty to the respondent in the appellant's choice of contact person for its dealings with the Commission.
-
116.
Dhahbi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2009 FC 347 - 2009-04-06
Federal Court Decisions[4] In reply, the Minister submits that procedural fairness was observed and that a special advocate does not have to be appointed because: [...] Does the non‑disclosure to the applicants of information known to the decision maker amount to a breach of procedural fairness? [...] Yet the IRPA deals expressly with that obligation in subsection 87(2).
-
117.
Bergeron v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2022 FCA 209 - 2022-12-05
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsBecause of what her counsel calls a “tragi-comedy of errors” on the part of the Commission, the Federal Court set aside two decisions not to deal with Ms. Bergeron’s complaint on procedural fairness grounds. [...] [2] It is indeed troubling that it has taken so long for the Commission to deal fairly with Ms. Bergeron’s human rights complaint, especially considering that the complaint has never been the subject of a full investigation. [...] [16] The Federal Court found that the Commission had again failed to treat Ms. Bergeron fairly as it failed to consider the submissions that she had made as to why the Commission should deal with her retaliation complaint.
-
118.
Gestion Yvan Drouin Inc. v. The Queen - 2000-12-19
Tax Court of Canada Judgments(i) the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at the time it was transferred exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given for the property, and [...] Section 69 creates a presumption that any disposition of property between persons not dealing at arm’s length is at fair market value. [...] Hoy and Cloutier acted so interdependently that they did not deal at arm’s length and the corporations they controlled were not dealing at arm’s length with each other.
-
119.
Canadian National Railway Co. v. Brocklehurst - 2000-12-07
Federal Court of Appeal DecisionsAs I have found that the Agency has no jurisdiction, I will not deal with these other issues. [...] The subjects with which the Canadian Board has authority to deal are much more numerous than those with which either the English or the United States Commission can deal. [...] (d.) Faire, construire ou placer le chemin de fer à travers ou sur les terrains de toute personne quelconque [...]
-
120.
Brown v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 823 - 2024-05-30
Federal Court Decisions(1) Procedural fairness [27] Questions of procedural fairness are reviewed on the correctness standard: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, per Binnie J at para 43. [...] [40] An issue then becomes how best and most efficiently to deal with this matter once it goes back. [...] However, as the Applicant decries, this matter has already taken a great deal of time to get to this point.
-
121.
Bruneau v. The Queen - 2010 TCC 145 - 2010-03-11
Tax Court of Canada Judgments(c) a person with whom the person was not dealing at arm’s length, the following rules apply: [...] (i) the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at the time it was transferred exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given for the property, and [...] [9] For subsection 160(1) of the Act to apply, there must be, between persons not dealing with each other at arm's length, a transfer of property without consideration or a transfer for which the fair market value of the consideration is less than the fair market value of the property at the time of the transfer.
-
122.
World Corp. v. The Queen - 2003 TCC 494 - 2003-07-17
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[30] Wise then referred to the standard definitions of fair market value and continued as follows: [...] To arrive at the fair market value of the Commission Receivable, we applied discounts to recognize these risks. [...] [62] I now deal with the aforesaid modification of the Wise opinion.
-
123.
Greaves v. Royal Bank of Canada - 2019 FC 994 - 2019-12-12
Federal Court Decisions[25] Whether the Commission’s process was fair raises issues of procedural fairness, which are reviewable on a correctness standard (Harvey v VIA Rail Canada Inc., 2019 FC 569 at para 20; Joshi v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2015 FCA 92 at para 6). [...] A. Procedural fairness of the Commission’s decision [28] The Applicant essentially submits that the Commission breached her right to procedural fairness because it did not consider her submissions filed in response to the report. [...] Accordingly, the Court finds that no breach of procedural fairness occurred.
-
124.
Iberville Developments Limited v. The Queen - 2018 TCC 102 - 2018-05-28
Tax Court of Canada Judgments[44] The exceptional concept of units of a partnership does not appear in either subdivision C dealing with capital gains and capital losses or in subdivision J dealing with partnerships. [...] This is in contrast to the rules in paragraphs 85(1)(g) and (h) dealing with the transferor’s shares under a corporate rollover. [...] 9 One of the fundamental principles of legislative construction is that a statute or provision of a statute which deals specifically with a subject-matter must take priority over, and override, any general legislation or provision dealing with the same subject-matter.
-
125.
Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. v. The Queen - 2010 TCC 317 - 2010-06-11
Tax Court of Canada JudgmentsThe Respondent assessed Daishowa by including in the calculation of its proceeds of disposition of timber resource properties, the amount of the estimated silviculture liability, being $11,000,000 in the Tolko deal and $2,996,380 in the Seehta deal. [...] [22] I will reach a conclusion based on an analysis of the Tolko deal, and will then indicate if the Seehta deal differs significantly to lead to any different conclusion. [...] As Justice Lamarre made clear, the element carved out of the business deal in that case was already a separate stand-alone transaction, unlike here, where the forest tenures were an integral and essential part of the overall deal.