7,645 result(s)
-
226.
Angelcare Canada Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc. - 2023 FC 1111 - 2023-08-17
Federal Court Decisions[52] The Plaintiffs, fairly, acknowledge that there is no such thing in the case at hand. [...] I shall deal hereinafter with the Angelcare Patents without distinguishing the 312 Patent from the other four patents. [...] Once again, our Court showed its willingness to consider the broad reality of commercial dealings, given the extensive meaning given to “persons claiming under the patentee”.
-
227.
Habib v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1116 - 2023-08-17
Federal Court DecisionsThese can include, as summarized by Justice McHaffie in ArcelorMittal Exploitation Minière Canada S.E.N.C. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 998: “the public interest in having proceedings move fairly and with due dispatch; the general principle of applying the Rules to secure a just, expeditious and cost-effective [...] I will, however, order, as was done in the cases dealing with citizenship revocation process (Monla v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1280) and the right of an appeal at the RAD (Buyu Luemba v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2018 FC 681) that the matters be specially managed in order to
-
228.
Bibaud v. Bell Technical Solutions Inc. - 2023 FC 1113 - 2023-08-16
Federal Court DecisionsNor is it necessary to deal at length with the reasons given by the external investigator in her handling of the complaint. [...] The case therefore had to be set aside, and the Court would not deal with the merits. [...] Since it was agreed that procedural fairness had been breached, there was no need to say more.
-
229.
Hoffman v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1103 - 2023-08-14
Federal Court DecisionsThe Final Authority concluded that there were errors in the earlier process that had denied Corporal Hoffman procedural fairness, but that they had been remedied through a review of the matter by a higher authority. [...] Given that, in Corporal Hoffman’s view, the remedial measures were excessive, unreasonable, unfair, and used as an improper substitute for a fair, impartial and transparent process - the only reasonable outcome in the present circumstances is for this Court to quash the impugned remedial measures. [...] This Court, in the Respondent’s view, should defer to the knowledge and expertise of the Canadian Forces decision-makers in their choices of processes to deal with allegations of misconduct where the investigation did not reveal criminal wrongdoing.
-
230.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Abdelrazik - 2023 FC 1100 - 2023-08-11
Federal Court DecisionsHe added that Canada’s law enforcement and security agencies operate in a constitutional democracy and are subject to the rule of law and the courts and asserted that they are consequently unable to provide confidentiality guarantees to any foreign agency, outlining that any foreign country that Canadian agencies deal with [...] Both parties presented summaries that, in their view, provide the gist or the essence of the redacted Information to ensure fairness in the underlying proceeding while also minimizing or limiting the injury to national security or international relations.
-
231.
Mamlouk v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1097 - 2023-08-11
Federal Court Decisions[20] The applicant argues that, despite the fact that the RAD’s findings deal with credibility, which would usually warrant deference, the Court should not hesitate to intervene in a clear case of error as in this case (Martinez Giron v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 7 [Martinez Giron] at para 15). [...] She argues that this evidence [translation] “the genuineness of which is not in dispute” should have been considered fairly by the RAD rather than being discounted because of what it does not say, that is, the names of the persecutors or their organizations.
-
232.
Bello v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1094 - 2023-08-10
Federal Court DecisionsAfter setting out a list of factors and considerations designed to assist officers assessing H&C applications under s. 25(1) as set out in IP 5, the Application stated that family-related interests are important when “dealing with an A25 application.” She noted her close bond with her children, and that removal from [...] (a) uses, deals with or acts on it as if it were genuine; (b) causes or attempts to cause any person to use, deal with or act on it as if it were genuine; [...] [17] The Supreme Court of Canada has established that when conducting judicial review of the merits of an administrative decision, other than a review related to a breach of natural justice and/or the duty of procedural fairness, the presumptive standard of review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
-
233.
McLean v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1093 - 2023-08-10
Federal Court DecisionsHe found that the Agreement, despite the objections and its alleged shortcomings, was fair and reasonable. [...] See, by way of comparison, Lavier v MyTravel Canada Holidays Inc, 2011 ONSC 3149 at paragraphs 35–36; Myers v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 95 [Myers] (dealing with the IRSSA). [...] [120] As we have seen above, the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction may be invoked where there is a gap in the settlement agreement to deal with unforeseen circumstances.
-
234.
Al-Rubaye v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1089 - 2023-08-09
Federal Court Decisions[5] On December 22, 2019, the Officer sent the Applicant a procedural fairness letter [PFL]. [...] Did the Officer breach the Applicant’s procedural fairness rights by failing to provide him an opportunity to respond to the Officer’s concerns? [...] The second issue deals with procedural fairness, which is subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure that a fair and just process was followed, an exercise best reflected in the correctness standard even though, strictly speaking, no standard of review is being applied (see Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Transport
-
235.
Andarawes v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1086 - 2023-08-09
Federal Court Decisions[10] First dealing with voluntariness, the RPD considered two of the reasons identified by the Applicant for his travels to Egypt - his grandmother’s surgery and his stomach reduction surgery. [...] Whether the Applicant was deprived of procedural fairness by not being afforded an opportunity to adduce certain evidence at the hearing. [...] It is therefore unnecessary for the Court to address the procedural fairness issue.
-
236.
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.
-
237.
Randhawa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1074 - 2023-08-04
Federal Court DecisionsA. The Applicant was not denied procedural fairness [16] The Applicant’s procedural fairness claim is based on two inter-related arguments. [...] [19] The Respondent takes issue with both aspects of the Applicant’s claim relating to procedural fairness. [...] [21] I am not persuaded that the RAD denied the Applicant procedural fairness.
-
238.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1078 - 2023-08-04
Federal Court DecisionsIn April 2019, Mr. Singh’s home was raided by the police; he was detained, beaten, given electric shocks, tortured, threatened and accused of being involved with “anti-national elements, dealing in drugs.” Only the payment of further bribes by his parents could secure his release. [...] [10] The RAD found that Mr. Singh identified no examples of how his right to a fair hearing was denied. [...] To be clear, Mr. Singh does not dispute the fairness of the proceedings before the RAD, but rather the RAD’s decision in upholding what he claims to be a breach of procedural fairness by the RPD in not granting his request for a postponement of his hearing.
-
239.
Ewert v. Canada - 2023 FC 1054 - 2023-08-01
Federal Court DecisionsThe CCRA and CCRR contain various provisions dealing with searches of inmates, their possessions, and their cells: CCRA, ss 46–58; CCRR, ss 43–53. [...] And I think that it’s fair that somebody did ask that in the spirit of reassuring or in the spirit of ensuring that you had access to your medicine. [...] As she noted, and I agree, it is fair to ask a question in good faith, with the knowledge that different people have different traditions.
-
240.
Ingarra v. Dye & Durham Limited - 2023 FC 1046 - 2023-07-31
Federal Court Decisionsconcurrent S’entend notamment de toute personne qui, en toute raison, ferait vraisemblablement concurrence à une autre personne à l’égard d’un produit en l’absence d’un complot, d’un accord ou d’un arrangement visant à faire l’une des choses prévues aux alinéas (1)a) à c). [...] [30] The second part of the Martin test deals with the risk that confidential information will be used to the prejudice of the former client (MediaTube at para 28). [...] [91] The risk of misuse of confidential information is the second stage of the Martin analysis, but the Court does not need to deal with it in the circumstances.
-
241.
Perreault v. Canada (Foreign Affairs) - 2023 FC 1051 - 2023-07-31
Federal Court Decisions[12] In dealing with complaint nos. 3218-01044 and 5821-01172, Global Affairs reviewed the application of certain exemptions in the disclosure of May 21, 2021. [...] We think the de novo hearing is a better opportunity to revisit procedural fairness concerns that may have occurred during the course of the investigation on three levels. [...] It is not necessarily a question of reading down but rather of determining whether, on a fair reading of section 44.1 of the Act, that provision is limited to undertaking a de novo review solely with respect to the question of whether the head of the government institution was authorized to refuse disclosure; to that
-
242.
Piatka-Wasty v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1042 - 2023-07-31
Federal Court Decisions• [28]As well, Mr. Johnson deposed about his dealings with DFO regarding the Applicants’ dock. [...] D. Was there a breach of procedural fairness and/or natural justice? [...] • [162]Bias is an aspect of procedural fairness, dealing with the right of a person to get fair treatment in the context of administrative decision making.
-
243.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1036 - 2023-07-28
Federal Court DecisionsIssues related to procedural fairness are subject to the standard of what level of fairness the circumstances require: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 51. [...] The Respondent submits the Officer met the low level of procedural fairness required. [...] [26] The Applicant’s procedural fairness argument is predicated on the basis that the officer’s concern that the level of the English class he had taken was not conveyed to him in the fairness letter.
-
244.
Alvi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1031 - 2023-07-27
Federal Court DecisionsTheir submissions also raised a question of procedural fairness. I. Analysis [...] • c)The RAD expressly stated that it would deal with the letter, but did not. [...] [29] Finally, it is unfortunate that the RAD stated that it would deal with the letter and did not, but it was not fatal to the reasonableness of its decision.
-
245.
Pierre v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1027 - 2023-07-27
Federal Court DecisionsThe latter factor is also relevant to evaluating the issue of procedural fairness. [...] [23] I am not persuaded that the officer breached his duty of procedural fairness. [...] [25] The applicant notes that the decision in Khodchenko v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 819 [Khodchenko] deals with a situation very similar to the matter at hand.
-
246.
Ramanathan v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1029 - 2023-07-27
Federal Court DecisionsThe respondent also noted that procedural fairness did not require a standard of perfection from CRA. [...] B. Was the Applicant deprived of Procedural Fairness? [40] In my view, this application should be determined on the basis of whether CRA provided the applicant with procedural fairness. [...] None of the procedural fairness cases cited by the respondent captures the present circumstances.
-
247.
Samuel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1020 - 2023-07-26
Federal Court DecisionsHe also argues that the RPD breached procedural fairness by constantly interrupting him during his testimony. [...] Finally, the RPD followed all applicable principles of procedural fairness. [...] [16] The relevant statutory provisions are found in sections 107, 107.1 and 110 of the IRPA. Subsection 107(2) deals with claims for refugee protection that have “no credible basis” while section 107.1 deals with claims for refugee protection that are “manifestly unfounded”.
-
248.
Verreault v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1019 - 2023-07-26
Federal Court DecisionsAn applicant has the right to know the case to meet and to have a full and fair chance to respond. [...] [30] Mr. Verreault’s written submissions do not deal with the issue of whether the Decision is reasonable. [...] However, since the AGC does deal with this issue at length in the AGC’s memorandum of fact and law, and since counsel for Mr. Verreault also made several remarks in this regard at the hearing before the Court, it is appropriate to deal with this issue.
-
249.
Rana v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1014 - 2023-07-25
Federal Court DecisionsA. Was Mr. Rana denied procedural fairness? [13] Mr. Rana submits that he was denied procedural fairness through the disclosure process and disciplinary hearing. [...] [15] Mr. Rana’s argument of procedural fairness is not persuasive for two reasons. [...] Mr. Rana has not established a breach of his right to procedural fairness.
-
250.
7294140 Canada Inc. (Zoomtoner) v. Connexlogix Inc. - 2023 FC 1010 - 2023-07-24
Federal Court DecisionsThe Court must interpret summary judgment rules broadly, favouring proportionality and fair access to affordable, timely and just adjudication; a fair and just process is one that permits a judge to find the facts necessary to resolve the dispute and to apply the relevant legal principles to the facts as found. [...] [23] I deal first with the preliminary admissibility issues and follow with a consideration of whether the Defendants have established, for each of them, that there is no genuine issue for trial. [...] c) faire passer d’autres produits ou services pour ceux qui sont commandés ou demandés;