7,653 result(s)
-
26.
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.
-
27.
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 [62] For the Court of Appeal, the obligation made by s 82 for the Minister to recommend that an emergency order be repealed when the imminent threat no longer exists “clearly demonstrate once again that the objective is to deal with a precarious situation which requires an immediate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
-
28.
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.
-
29.
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.
-
30.
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.
-
31.
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.
-
32.
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.
-
33.
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.
-
34.
Tavajjohi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 835 - 2024-06-03
Federal Court Decisions[2] Since the reasons to reject the applications for all based on the refusal of the PA’s study permit application, the cases were joined and I deal with them together here. [...] Since the Officer’s reasons on the determinative issue was reasonable, I need not deal with the family ties. [...] B. Did the Officer reach their decision in a procedurally fair manner?
-
35.
1395804 Ontario Ltd. (Blacklock's Reporter) v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 829 - 2024-05-31
Federal Court Decisions• fair dealing is an integral part of the scheme; it is not a defence; [...] Once again, fair dealing is an integral part of the Act: it is not merely a defence. [...] The fair dealing right is meant to be robust. One of the purposes of the fair dealing right is to bring balance to copyright law and avoids allowing a monopoly over the use of the works (CCH, para 70).
-
36.
Çolakoğlu Metalurji A.S. v. Altasteel Inc. - 2024 FC 831 - 2024-05-31
Federal Court Decisions[36] Dealing with the first ground, one must distinguish between a re‐investigation which is in the nature of an inquiry process, and a re‐determination which is a decision that may result from that inquiry process. [...] [28] It is clear, however, that the grounds of appeal available under SIMA are broad and include issues of procedural fairness (Toyota, above; Spike Marks, above). [...] d’une ordonnance d’un office fédéral, rendue à tout stade des procédures, cette décision ou cette ordonnance ne peut, dans la mesure où elle est susceptible d’un tel appel, faire l’objet de contrôle, de restriction, de prohibition, d’évocation, d’annulation ni d’aucune autre intervention, sauf en conformité avec cette loi.
-
37.
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.
-
38.
Percival v. Canada - 2024 FC 824 - 2024-05-30
Federal Court Decisions[38] I appreciate that for Canada, as asserted by counsel, dealing with estate issues is complicated in the context of a national class, as estate issues are primarily under provincial jurisdiction. [...] [73] Overall, I am satisfied that both parties did their due diligence so as to be certain that they were coming to a fair and lasting settlement. [...] [89] For the reasons above, I am satisfied that the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable and in the best interests of the class as a whole.
-
39.
Shirazi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 822 - 2024-05-30
Federal Court Decisions[2] Since the reasons to reject the applications for all based on the refusal of the PA’s study permit application, the cases were joined and I deal with them together here. [...] The central question for issues of procedural fairness is whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances, including the factors enumerated in Baker v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 SCR 817 at paragraphs 21-28 (Canadian Pacific Railway Company at [...] [29] Since I have set aside the Officer's decision because it is unreasonable, it is not necessary to address the procedural fairness issues raised.
-
40.
Khodayarinezhad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 818 - 2024-05-29
Federal Court DecisionsSpecifically, IRCC allegedly breached the Applicant’s right of procedural fairness in the following ways: [...] [18] As set out previously, the Applicant abandoned the arguments related to the alleged breaches of procedural fairness. [...] Proper Reply is limited to issues that a party had no opportunity to deal with, or which could not reasonably have been anticipated...
-
41.
Empire Company Limited v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 810 - 2024-05-28
Federal Court DecisionsPart VIII deals with civilly reviewable trade practices, including the abuse of dominant position provisions in section 79. [...] The applicant then sought judicial review on the basis that the Commissioner had failed to carry out his duties under the Act, and had not acted fairly. [...] (d) may prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action, (e) constitutes a departure from a previous pleading, or
-
42.
Utano v. Canada (Public Safety) - 2024 FC 805 - 2024-05-28
Federal Court Decisions[18] Given that the Applicants’ motion for injunctive relief is premised on the underlying application for judicial review, which the Respondent seeks to strike, it makes procedural sense to deal first with the Respondent’s motion. [...] I will deal with each in turn. (a) Are the PSFs final decisions? [43] The Applicants submit that the PSFs were intentionally designed to give the impression of conclusiveness, despite their label as preliminary. [...] [61] I agree with the Respondent that, in following the Federal Court of Appeal’s authoritative direction in C.B. Powell, allegations of procedural fairness do not amount to exceptional circumstances: C.B. Powell at para 33.
-
43.
Acoose v. Zagimē Anishinabēk - 2024 FC 741 - 2024-05-22
Federal Court Decisions[31] This Court had to deal with a similar situation in McCallum v Canoe Lake Cree First Nation, 2022 FC 969 [McCallum]. [...] In the end, while Zagimē’s manner of dealing with membership issues may appear curious, it is not unlawful. [...] It is fairly apparent from the record that Zagimē’s use of two lists for different purposes has caused confusion.
-
44.
Mayers v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 776 - 2024-05-22
Federal Court DecisionsDid the Parole Board breach procedural fairness by proceeding with a paper review? [...] [10] For issues of procedural fairness, the Court must consider whether the process followed was fair and just, paying attention to the nature of the rights at stake and consequences for the affected individuals. [...] B. Did the Parole Board breach procedural fairness by proceeding with a paper review?
-
45.
Enigmatus, S.R.O. v. Playtika Ltd. - 2024 FC 751 - 2024-05-17
Federal Court DecisionsI deal with each element in turn below. [64] A fundamental or minimum threshold to establishing goodwill or reputation is the existence of enforceable trademark rights: Hamdard Trust, above at para 49. [...] I deal with each in turn below. (a) Slotopoly.com Domain [86] Contrary to the Plaintiff’s submissions, use of a domain name per se, in my view, is not in itself trademark use, even if it resolves to a website that promotes goods and services. [...] I turn next, however, to a consideration of the Plaintiff’s asserted likelihood of confusion between the SLOTOPOLY and SLOTOMANIA Marks, because it is necessary to deal with the Defendants’ counterclaim.
-
46.
Katoch v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 744 - 2024-05-15
Federal Court DecisionsCFIA’s Policy, the Code, the Regulations and the collective agreement between the Institute and the CFIA. The Applicant also claimed that the investigator failed to “act fairly and in accordance with the rules of natural justice” and to conduct the investigation in a “fair, balanced, unbiased or otherwise appropriate way”. [...] (i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or [...] Although the alternative administrative procedure need not be equivalent or provide a better remedy, it must deal “meaningfully and effectively with the substance of the employee’s grievance”.
-
47.
Mousavimianji v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 726 - 2024-05-10
Federal Court DecisionsProper Reply is limited to issues that a party had no opportunity to deal with, or which could not reasonably have been anticipated. [...] Paragraph 1 is in response to the Respondent’s paragraph 1, which was simply their Overview, and the Court refuses to accept that an overview of a case dealing exclusively with procedural fairness introduces issues of reasonableness. [...] With these findings in mind, the four walls within which the Applicant was granted leave based on their original materials limit them to the procedural fairness arguments they have now abandoned.
-
48.
Energizer Brands, LLC v. Gillette Company - 2024 FC 717 - 2024-05-09
Federal Court Decisions[9] Fairness and reasonableness are overarching considerations in making a costs award; it involves striking a balance between compensating the successful party and not burdening the unsuccessful party unduly: Janssen Inc v Teva Canada Ltd, 2022 FC 269 [Janssen] at para 8. [...] [51] At trial, I disallowed or excluded the portion of Dr. Kolsarici’s expert report dealing with the Difference in Difference [DID] analysis, specifically paragraphs 258‐272, because of Dr. Kolsarici’s failure to comply with paragraph 3(i) of the Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses (under rule 52.2): Energizer
-
49.
Mohammed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 713 - 2024-05-09
Federal Court Decisions[5] The second issue raises the duty of procedural fairness. The Court reviews such issues on a standard akin to correctness, in which the Court asks whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54. [...] B. There was no breach of the duty of procedural fairness (1) Background to the claim for refugee protection [...] There was no breach of either the statutory procedural obligations set out in the IRPA or the duty of procedural fairness.
-
50.
Thomas v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 655 - 2024-05-09
Federal Court DecisionsThe MGERC also provides the CDS with systemic recommendations, such as measures to increase fairness and transparency in the grievance process. [...] [29] In Vaughan, the Supreme Court held that while courts generally should defer to any legislative schemes that exist to deal with employment-related disputes, they nonetheless retain residual jurisdiction that may be exercised where the legislated process does not provide effective redress: Vaughan at paras 18–25. [...] (i) would fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class,