7,586 result(s)
-
1.
Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency v. York University - 2017 FC 669 - 2017-07-12
Federal Court DecisionsB. Fair Dealing – Counterclaim [14] - [29] IV. The Parties [30] [...] B. Fair Dealing – Counterclaim [14] York’s own Fair Dealing Guidelines [Guidelines] are not fair in either their terms or their application. [...] - Guidance on fair dealing in key court decisions in 2012 led to the development of a series of fair dealing guidelines.
-
2.
Stross v. Trend Hunter Inc. - 2021 FC 955 - 2021-09-15
Federal Court DecisionsB. No “News Reporting” Fair Dealing Exception under Section 29.2 of Copyright Act [...] v The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2020 FCA 77 at paras 212-241 for the proposition that where a fair dealing defence is based on a system of fair dealing policies or practices, then the “purpose of the dealing” factor should focus on the safeguards in place to ensure that the dealing is fair. [...] Fair Dealing Utilisation équitable Research, private study, etc.
-
3.
1395804 Ontario Ltd. (Blacklock's Reporter) v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2016 FC 1255 - 2016-11-10
Federal Court Decisions[t]he availability of a license is not relevant to deciding whether a dealing has been fair ... [...] ... [27] In mandating a generous interpretation of the fair dealing purposes, including “research”, the Court in CCH created a relatively low threshold for the first step so that the analytical heavy-hitting is done in determining whether the dealing was fair. [...] [33] I am satisfied that the Department’s acknowledged use of the two Blacklock’s articles constituted fair dealing.
-
4.
Stross v. Trend Hunter Inc. - 2020 FC 201 - 2020-02-06
Federal Court DecisionsThe second part of the test, requires a determination of whether the dealing is “fair”. [...] A. Part 1 of the Fair Dealing Test: was the dealing for the purpose of research or news reporting [...] B. Part two of the Fair Dealing Test: was the dealing “fair” [32] The heart of the fair dealing analysis is the second part of the CCH test: the determination of whether the dealing is “fair”.
-
5.
Warman v. Fournier - 2012 FC 803 - 2012-06-21
Federal Court Decisions[33] These factors militate in favour of a finding of fair dealing in this case. [...] The nature of the work favours a finding of fair dealing. The Kay Work is not currently published, which supports a finding of fair dealing because one of the purposes of copyright law is to promote wider dissemination of works: CCH, at para 58. [...] Also, the character of the dealing does not strongly support a finding of fair dealing.
-
6.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Conservative Party of Canada - 2021 FC 425 - 2021-05-13
Federal Court DecisionsFair Dealing Utilisation équitable Research, private study, etc. [...] This is a factor which may be more relevant to the second stage of the “fair dealing” analysis – character of the dealing. [...] As such, this factor points to fairness. (b) Character of the dealing
-
7.
Klimkowski v. Canadian Pacific Railway - 2017 FC 438 - 2017-05-03
Federal Court Decisions[3] In a decision dated June 10, 2015, the CHRC declined to deal with the Complaint [the CHRC decision]. [...] The decision was reasonable and there was no breach of procedural fairness. [...] [66] I am satisfied that the Section 40/41 Report addressed and reasonably concluded that the arbitration process was procedurally fair, and that no unfairness arose out of relying on that proceeding to not deal with the Complaint under the CHRA process.
-
8.
United Airlines, Inc. v. Cooperstock - 2017 FC 616 - 2017-06-23
Federal Court Decisions(2) Fair Dealing [106] - [108] (a) Is the dealing for an allowable purpose? [...] (b) Is the dealing fair? [121] (i) The Purpose of the Dealing [122] - [125] [...] The questionable purpose of the dealing, amount of the dealing, and effect of the dealing all weigh in favour of the conclusion that this dealing is not fair.
-
9.
Jean Pierre v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1423 - 2015-12-29
Federal Court Decisions• Did the Commission breach the duty of fairness it owed to Mr. Jean Pierre and its duty to comply with the rules of procedural fairness in examining his complaint? [...] A. Did the Commission breach the duty of fairness it owed to Mr. Jean Pierre and its duty to comply with the rules of procedural fairness in examining his complaint? [...] Its discretion to decide whether to deal with a complaint made that option available, and there was no breach of procedural fairness in this context.
-
10.
Zulkoskey v. Canada (Employment and Social Development) - 2015 FC 1196 - 2015-10-29
Federal Court DecisionsA. Did the CHRC Provide Adequate Procedural Fairness to the Applicant? [...] [34] The first two Baker factors point towards a lesser degree of procedural fairness. [...] This Baker factor suggests an increased level of procedural fairness.
-
11.
2553-4330 Québec inc. v. Duverger - 2017 FC 128 - 2017-02-02
Federal Court DecisionsDid the Commission fail in its duty of procedural fairness? C. Was it reasonable for the Commission to decide to deal with the complaint? [...] (2) Procedural fairness [37] Regarding the New Report, Aéropro alleges that it was prepared: [...] The Court finds that there was no violation of procedural fairness. C. Was it reasonable for the Commission to decide to deal with the complaint?
-
12.
Stukanov v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2021 FC 49 - 2021-01-13
Federal Court DecisionsHe alleges that the Commission breached procedural fairness, and that the Commission’s decisions were unreasonable. [...] Did the Commission breach procedural fairness? B. Are the Commission’s decisions not to deal with Mr. Stukanov’s complaints unreasonable? [...] A. Procedural Fairness [30] Mr. Stukanov submits the Commission breached procedural fairness in multiple ways.
-
13.
Canada Post Corporation v. Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association (CPAA) - 2016 FC 882 - 2016-07-28
Federal Court DecisionsA. Was there a breach of procedural fairness? B. Was the CHRC Decision reasonable? [...] Issues relating to procedural fairness will be reviewed on a standard of correctness. [...] [43] Even if I am wrong, and the failure to explicitly refer to the applicant’s submissions engages a procedural fairness issue, no breach of procedural fairness occurred here.
-
14.
Agnaou v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2014 FC 86 - 2014-01-27
Federal Court Decisions2. Did the procedure followed by the Deputy Commissioner breach procedural fairness? [...] If it is not plain and obvious to the Commission that the complaint falls under one of the grounds for not dealing with it under section 41, the Commission should, with dispatch, proceed to deal with it. [...] Procedural fairness [27] The applicant alleges that the Deputy Commissioner of the Office of the PSIC breached procedural fairness in the following manner:
-
15.
Boshra v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2011 FC 1128 - 2011-10-05
Federal Court Decisionsa. Was there a breach of procedural fairness in the decisions? b. Were the Commission’s decisions not to deal with the Applicant’s complaints reasonable? [...] Issue #1: Was there a breach of procedural fairness in the decisions? [...] Thus, for the principles of procedural fairness to have been followed, the Section 40/41 Reports must have been completed in a procedurally fair manner.
-
16.
Detorakis v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2010 FC 39 - 2010-01-13
Federal Court Decisions(i) receive, review, investigate and otherwise deal with complaints made in respect of reprisals. [...] (i) receive, review, investigate and otherwise deal with complaints made in respect of reprisals. [...] Procedural Fairness [92] The Applicant says that, in making its Decision, the PSIC breached the duty of procedural fairness owed to him in this situation because:
-
17.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Lapierre - 2004 FC 612 - 2004-04-23
Federal Court Decisions[15] The question is whether the apparent lack of procedural fairness that the government alleges is sufficient to invalidate the Commission's decision that it has jurisdiction to deal with Ms. Lapierre's complaint. [...] Because a decision not to deal with the complaint will summarily end a matter before the complaint is investigated, the Commission should only decide not to deal with a complaint at this stage in plain and obvious cases. [...] If it is not plain and obvious to the Commission that the complaint falls under one of the grounds for not dealing with it under section 41, the Commission should, with dispatch, proceed to deal with it.
-
18.
Ozcevik v. Canada (Revenue Agency) - 2021 FC 13 - 2021-01-05
Federal Court DecisionsIn sum, the focus of the reviewing court is whether the process was fair and just. [...] [14] I am not persuaded that there has been a breach of procedural fairness. [...] Having concluded the Commission did not breach procedural fairness, in that its investigation of Mr. Ozcevik’s complaint was sufficiently thorough and neutral, I further find that its decision not to deal with the complaint was not unreasonable.
-
19.
Price v. Concord transportation Inc. - 2003 FC 946 - 2003-08-01
Federal Court Decisions[9] The Applicant then contacted her local member of Parliament for assistance in dealing with the Commission. [...] The Report recommended that the Commission not deal with the complaint. [...] [17] The Applicant now seeks an order to set aside the Commission's decision and to require it to deal with her complaint.
-
20.
Georgoulas v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2018 FC 652 - 2018-06-22
Federal Court DecisionsE. Application for Judicial Review of the Commission’s Section 40/41 Decision to Deal With the Complaint [...] It does not amount to a breach of procedural fairness. VIII. Did the Commission Breach Procedural Fairness by Demonstrating a Closed Mind? [...] [163] The Commission’s decision to first “deal with” (i.e. investigate) the complaint is reasonable.
-
21.
Tse v. Federal Express Canada Ltd. - 2005 FC 598 - 2005-05-02
Federal Court Decisions12. August 25, 2004: The Commission decides not to deal with the third complaint. [...] Federal Express claimed that Mr. Tse was getting a full and fair hearing in that forum. [...] (i) Did the Commission fail to afford procedural fairness to Mr. Tse?
-
22.
Tyler v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 257 - 2023-02-22
Federal Court DecisionsThe central question is whether the procedure was fair, having regard to all of the circumstances: Canadian Pacific Railway at para 54. [...] Furthermore, the Commission breached principles of procedural fairness because it did not communicate a deadline to provide the Investigator’s Report, or warn that a delay in providing it could result in a refusal to deal with her complaint. [...] In view of this finding, it is not necessary to address Ms. Tyler’s procedural fairness arguments.
-
23.
Mulligan v. Canadian National Railway Company - 2015 FC 532 - 2015-04-24
Federal Court DecisionsGiven that the alternate decision-maker dealt with the human rights issues raised in this complaint, and that process was fair, the Commission must respect the finality of that decision and should not deal with this complaint. [...] 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 [...] The Decision says the internal grievance process was fair but fails to consider the Applicant’s reply submissions.
-
24.
Choudhry v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1085 - 2023-08-09
Federal Court DecisionsI am not convinced that the Commission committed any reviewable error in refusing to deal with Mr. Choudhry’s late CER Complaint or that it breached his right to a procedurally fair process. [...] [39] I will first deal with the contents of Mr. Choudhry’s affidavit. [...] Mr. Choudhry’s first argument on procedural fairness has no foundation.
-
25.
Kidd v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority - 2004 FC 703 - 2004-05-14
Federal Court Decisions1. Did the Commission violate s. 42(1) of the CHRA or breach the principles of procedural fairness in failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision? [...] of review analysis, since I am not undertaking to review the substance of the Commission's decision and the issue of adequacy of reasons falls within the parameters of the principles of procedural fairness, it is well-established that a decision pursuant to s. 41(1)(e) is subject to a great deal of curial deference. [...] In my view, whether such ground for refusal to deal with the complaint was open to the Commission does not arise in this judicial review proceeding, since the Commission did not state that s. 41(1)(d) of the CHRA was a ground on which it had decided not to deal with the complaint.