7,645 result(s)
-
1.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Torres Pantoja - 2024 FC 993 - 2024-06-26
Federal Court Decisions[12] I agree with the line of cases that interpret s. 111(2) of the IRPA in a consistent manner with the role of the RAD as an appellate administrative tribunal where it needs to be decisive, fair and efficient. [...] [14] Even if one interprets the RAD’s comments on the unresolved credibility issues raised by the Minister before the RPD as an implied error, it is still hard to understand why the RAD, whose role as an appellant body is to hear the appeal, did not deal with it more decisively. [...] [16] The Respondent argued that it appears that the RAD member found their arguments on the unavailability of IFA convincing, but chose not to deal with it because the Minister was a party, and that the RAD member had probably wished no to render an unfavourable decision to them.
-
2.
Singh Rai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 998 - 2024-06-26
Federal Court Decisions[18] At the outset of my analysis, I note that the Respondent’s dealings with the Applicant prior to the Work Permit 2 application contained several irregularities. [...] [19] It was unusual and an error for IRCC to indicate in its December 2020 eTA refusal that the Applicant had not responded to the procedural fairness letter. [...] It is unclear to me that this decision was made in a procedurally fair manner, as it appears to have been rendered without considering the Applicant’s response to the procedural fairness letter.
-
3.
Saleh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 988 - 2024-06-25
Federal Court DecisionsDid the Officer breach their duty of fairness by failing to disclose the NSSD assessment to the Applicant? [...] The question of procedural fairness is determined on a standard equivalent to correctness (Velimirovic v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1156 at para 13; Ahmed at para 24). [...] [40] The Board, through the RPD, is mandated to consider questions of risk, as referenced in the Act, when dealing with a claim for protection.
-
4.
Elykova v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 964 - 2024-06-21
Federal Court Decisions[22] The Applicant has raised issues going to both the reasonableness of the Second Decision and matters relating to procedural fairness. [...] The CRA followed the CRA Validation Procedure in their dealings with the Applicant, and at each step of the process, the Applicant was advised of her recourse should she disagree with the CRA’s decision. [...] [33] The Applicant has not met her burden of showing that the Second Decision was unreasonable nor has she shown that she was denied procedural fairness.
-
5.
Williams v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 960 - 2024-06-20
Federal Court Decisions[14] On July 6, 2023, the CRA spoke to the Applicant by phone and reviewed the additional documents she provided, which included a statement by the Applicant that she primarily deals in cash, photos and testimonials from previous customers and photos of the Applicant’s workshop and materials. [...] The onus of demonstrating a breach of procedural fairness lies with the Applicant [see Santaguida, supra at para 24]. [...] Therefore, I am not persuaded that her right to procedural fairness was breached.
-
6.
Ahsan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 956 - 2024-06-19
Federal Court DecisionsThe visa officer, however, was not required to deal explicitly with Mr. Ahsan’s travel history. [...] [6] Lastly, Mr. Ahsan argues that the officer breached procedural fairness by failing to give notice of their concerns and to afford him an opportunity to respond. [...] However, it is well established that visa applications attract a low degree of procedural fairness and that, barring credibility concerns, officers are not required to give notice of concerns that arise from the materials submitted with the application.
-
7.
Bahrami v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 957 - 2024-06-19
Federal Court Decisions[3] Nevertheless, it is trite law that visa officers must deal with a considerable volume of applications and cannot be expected to produce lengthy reasons. [...] [7] Lastly, Ms. Bahrami argues that the officer breached procedural fairness by failing to give “an opportunity to respond to contradictory findings”. [...] However, it is well established that visa applications attract a low degree of procedural fairness and that, barring credibility concerns, officers are not required to give notice of concerns that arise from the materials submitted with the application.
-
8.
Cold Lake First Nations v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 925 - 2024-06-19
Federal Court Decisionsc. full and fair consideration by the party obliged to consult of any views presented; [...] It is true that agreements intended to settle Indigenous claims must be given a generous interpretation consistent with the Crown’s “obligations of honourable conduct, reconciliation and fair dealing”: Long Plain, at paragraphs 117–120. [...] As I mentioned above, this must be done on the basis of a fairly narrow evidentiary record.
-
9.
McNair v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) - 2024 FC 948 - 2024-06-19
Federal Court Decisions[5] I deal next with the issues of procedural fairness and reasonableness in turn. [...] She concluded, on the record before her, that the Applicants have not made out a serious issue as it relates to a denial of procedural fairness: McNair, at paras 23-34. [...] In considering the Applicants’ procedural fairness arguments, Justice Furlanetto had the applicable review standard in mind, that is, whether the process was fair in the specific context: McNair, above at para 23, citing Taseko Mines Limited v Canada (Environment), 2019 FCA 320 at para 31.
-
10.
Asemebo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 937 - 2024-06-18
Federal Court DecisionsSection 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR] deals with applications for study permits. [...] While an oral hearing was not required, the Applicant states a procedural fairness letter should have been provided. [...] I do not agree with the Applicant that there was a breach of procedural fairness.
-
11.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 943 - 2024-06-18
Federal Court Decisions[3] Ms. Kaur first argues that the officer breached procedural fairness by making credibility findings without giving her notice and an opportunity to provide further submissions. [...] She highlights the officer’s statement, when dealing with the bank account issue, that “this information lacks authenticity of the reason to come to Canada”, as proof that credibility was the real concern. [...] The requirements of procedural fairness with respect to visa applications are minimal: Yuzer v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 781 at paragraph 16.
-
12.
Canada (Public Services and Procurement) v. Canada (Information Commissioner) - 2024 FC 918 - 2024-06-17
Federal Court Decisions4 (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente partie mais nonobstant toute autre loi fédérale, ont droit à l’accès aux documents relevant d’une institution fédérale et peuvent se les faire communiquer sur demande: [...] These practices include that BGIS “ensure its subcontracting processes are open, transparent and fair”, and that there is proper documentation including as to the selection criteria for subcontractors. [...] [104] Good faith in contractual dealings is an organizing principle in the law of contracts: Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, [2014] 3 SCR 494, at paras 63-66, 69-71; Wastech, at paras 58, 62-64, 128.
-
13.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act (CA) (Re) - 2022 FC 645 - 2024-06-13
Federal Court DecisionsAccordingly, the procedure followed was similar to that employed in dealing with applications for the issuance of warrants under the CSIS Act and proceedings under related statutes. [...] The affiant stated that she understood her obligation was to provide full, frank and fair disclosure to the Court and that the obligation extended to other members of the Service who had provided information to her, such as the operational personnel who had handled the datasets. [...] [51] These were novel applications and the Court wishes to thank counsel for the AGC and the amicus for their assistance to the Court in dealing with them.
-
14.
Zarate Lopez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 879 - 2024-06-13
Federal Court Decisions[4] In their memorandum, the Applicants had challenged both the reasonableness of the RAD decision and whether it was reached in a procedurally fair manner. [...] C. The Applicants’ allegation of direct dealing with the Cartel: Kidnapping [...] The RAD also engaged in compartmentalized way of dealing with credibility as a checklist of individual factors and not in the context of how and why those factors mattered in the context of the totality of the evidence.
-
15.
Hewage v. Canada (Prime Minister) - 2024 FC 901 - 2024-06-12
Federal Court Decisions[13] Further, striking a hopeless judicial review application is a valuable measure to ensure effective and fair litigation because it unclutters proceedings and permits the reallocation of scarce judicial resources to matters that, having some chance of success, can progress expeditiously to a hearing: Uyghur Rights [...] [15] I deal with each of these objections to the Application in turn.
-
16.
Innu Nation Inc. v. Canada (Crown-Indigenous Relations) - 2024 FC 896 - 2024-06-12
Federal Court DecisionsHe also confirmed that it was fair to say that Canada has never told NCC that it is not welcome to submit another claim. [...] However, Canada is not free to discuss the possibility of implementing rights for a settler group on Innu lands before dealing with the protection for our rights to lands and waters Innu have occupied for thousands of years. [...] Innu Nation has spent a great deal of time and money to vindicate our rights through the treaty process.
-
17.
Achola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 888 - 2024-06-11
Federal Court Decisions[9] With respect to issues of procedural fairness, the standard of review is not deferential. [...] A. Did the RAD reach its decision fairly? Allegations against former counsel [...] [10] The Applicant submits that she had raised a breach of procedural fairness argument at the RAD with respect to the incompetence of her counsel at the RPD. The Applicant argues that the RAD’s dismissal of that issue amounts to a breach of procedural fairness.
-
18.
Sellan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 883 - 2024-06-10
Federal Court DecisionsS’il ne peut le faire, il en donne la raison et indique quelles mesures il a prises pour se procurer de tels documents. [...] [14] For reasons that I will elaborate, I find that the member’s dealing with the NIC was unreasonable. [...] Not only did the member not deal with contrary evidence on the key issue, she did not see a need to hold a hearing to assess the Applicant’s credibility with respect to all of these.
-
19.
Western Canada Wilderness Committee v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change) - 2024 FC 870 - 2024-06-07
Federal Court Decisions(2) Le ministre compétent est tenu de faire la recommandation s’il estime que l’espèce est exposée à des menaces imminentes pour sa survie ou son rétablissement. [...] (3) Avant de faire la recommandation, il consulte tout autre ministre compétent. [...] [62] For the Court of Appeal, the obligation made by s 82 for the Minister to recommend that an emergency order be repealed when the imminent threat no longer exists “clearly demonstrate once again that the objective is to deal with a precarious situation which requires an immediate response, and not to encroach on
-
20.
Wahba v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 858 - 2024-06-06
Federal Court Decisions[5] The Applicant agreed that the Officer has considered all of what he had communicated to them, and therefore did not raise procedural fairness as an issue. [...] I find that the Applicant’s general frustration with the process or his disagreement with the legal criteria of each eligibility program to amount to a breach of procedural fairness, and I will therefore only deal with the reasonableness of the decisions. [...] [6] For reasons that follow, I find the Officer’s decisions for all three programs to be reasonable and reached without a breach of procedural fairness.
-
21.
Canada (Attorney General) v. British Columbia Civil Liberties Association - 2024 FC 853 - 2024-06-05
Federal Court DecisionsIt is also fair to say that all of the redacted information in this document is contentious. [...] [62] Be that as it may, in fairness to BCCLA, its Notice of Application was drafted in 2017. [...] [71] It is important at this point to underscore that there is substantial agreement between the AGC and the amicus that summaries of a great deal of redacted information are warranted.
-
22.
Safaeian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 846 - 2024-06-05
Federal Court DecisionsThe Applicant will respect any fair and rightful disposition by the Court. [...] The Court had issued a number of Directions dealing with the letter submitted by Counsel for the Applicant on April 5. [...] [13] Time was required to deal with the communications from Counsel.
-
23.
Boskovic v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 841 - 2024-06-04
Federal Court DecisionsDid the SST-AD breach the duty of procedural fairness or the principles of natural justice? [...] [46] [I]t is likely that the Applicant will find this result frustrating, because my reasons do not deal with the fundamental legal, ethical, and factual questions he is raising. [...] D. Procedural Fairness [62] The Applicant submitted that there was a breach of procedural fairness.
-
24.
Teklay v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2024 FC 843 - 2024-06-04
Federal Court DecisionsFirst, they argue that the RPD erred in failing to consider the procedural fairness of the Minister’s delay in filing the application to vacate the Applicants’ refugee status. [...] First, delay may adversely affect the fairness of a proceeding where it impairs a party’s ability to answer a complaint against them. [...] The issue of delay was not raised before the RPD and, as such, I declined to deal with the issue on its merits.
-
25.
Byarugaba v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 833 - 2024-06-03
Federal Court DecisionsDid the RAD member reach her decision in a procedurally fair manner? [...] Secondly, the Respondent relies on cases decided by immigration or visa officers, and not the IRB, which as a quasi-judicial body has developed well-defined procedural rules and deals with the fundamental rights those appearing before it (Baker). [...] The member’s failure to do this amounts to a breach of procedural fairness that taints the process.