7,653 result(s)
-
101.
Naveed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 318 - 2024-02-27
Federal Court DecisionsIt is “an approach meant to ensure that courts intervene in administrative matters only where it is truly necessary to do so in order to safeguard the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative process. [...] [28] The RAD upheld the RPD’s finding that the Applicants failed to establish that the police are forcing their minor son still living in Pakistan to deal drugs on their behalf: [...] Similarly, the grandmother’s affidavit states that the drug-addicted grandson obtains drugs through the police but does not speak to him dealing drugs for them.
-
102.
Brass v. Key First Nation - 2024 FC 304 - 2024-02-26
Federal Court Decisions[27] Thus, it is fair to say that each case will involve a different weighing depending on the individual circumstances before the decision maker (Solvay Pharma Inc. v. Apotex Inc., [2007] F.C.J. No.1190 (QL) at para. 12, 2007 FC 913). [...] And someone needed to organize a fairly chaotic scene, then, at the SA [social assistance] desk? [...] So, again, the experience at Champs, retail experience of dealing with somebody not necessarily scheduling an appointment, but coming to you in a moment, saying, “Hey, I need whatever that piece of clothing or product is” is something, again, that was a skill set that may have helped in that SA position?
-
103.
Montecristo Jewellers Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 309 - 2024-02-26
Federal Court DecisionsAs noted above, for a question of law or a breach of procedural fairness, no deference is owed. [...] (iii) establishing an agency that is responsible for ensuring compliance with Parts 1 and 1.1 and for dealing with reported and other information; [...] (a) respecting dealing in virtual currencies; a) régir le commerce de monnaie virtuelle;
-
104.
Omar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 299 - 2024-02-23
Federal Court DecisionsDid the Officer breach procedural fairness in not providing the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the Officer’s various concerns with the identity evidence? [...] [17] Issues of procedural fairness do not necessarily lend themselves to a standard of review analysis. [...] B. No breach of fairness [36] The Applicant notes that the initial H&C decision did not take issue with the Applicant’s identity and that, in dealing with the issue on redetermination, the Officer erred by not providing the Applicant with notice and an opportunity to respond.
-
105.
Alberta v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) - 2024 FC 292 - 2024-02-22
Federal Court Decisions[27] This Court found that the interim tariff was enforceable against York University and that neither its fair dealing guidelines nor its actual practices constituted fair dealing. [...] The Plaintiffs were granted leave to appeal the fair dealing issue to the Supreme Court. [...] In particular, it introduced education as an allowable fair dealing purpose.
-
106.
Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 288 - 2024-02-22
Federal Court Decisions(1) Did the RAD violate the Applicants' right to procedural fairness? [...] C. Procedural Fairness [22] The duty to act fairly comprises two components: 1) the right to a fair and impartial hearing before an independent decision-maker and 2) the right to be heard (Fortier v Canada (AG), 2022 FC 374 at para 14 [Fortier]; Therrien (Re), 2001 SCC 35 at para 82 [Therrien]. [...] A. Did the RAD violate the Applicants' right to procedural fairness?
-
107.
Zaheer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 263 - 2024-02-21
Federal Court Decisions[6] The Applicant argues that his right to procedural fairness was compromised because the PRRA Officer was unduly influenced by the reasons set out in an earlier decision by a U.S. Immigration Judge. [...] It is also significant that the PRRA Officer and the U.S. Immigration Judge were dealing with the same claims and it appears much of the same evidence, and so it is not surprising there is a resemblance on some of the reasoning. [...] [15] Therefore, there was no breach of procedural fairness or natural justice.
-
108.
Thibodeau v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority - 2024 FC 274 - 2024-02-20
Federal Court DecisionsI will deal with both applications at the same time because a number of issues are common to both. [...] However, these signs were not part of Mr. Thibodeau’s complaint to the Commissioner and, as such, I cannot deal with them. [...] [27] Subsections 23(1) and (2) of the OLA deal with the duty of federal institutions that provide services or make them available to the travelling public.
-
109.
Harpur Farms, LLC v. Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food) - 2024 FC 253 - 2024-02-16
Federal Court DecisionsBased on these assumptions, Ms. Bélanger calculated the fair market value of the semen straws to be $2,612,016. [...] Again, the fair market value is what a purchaser would accept to pay to a consenting seller in an open and free market. [...] [95] I agree with the Minister that VPN is to be considered as any third party purchaser dealing with Harpur Farms at arm’s length.
-
110.
Lam v. Law Society of Ontario - 2024 FC 265 - 2024-02-16
Federal Court DecisionsThe reason for this is simple – it is not fair to a defendant to have to respond to claims that are not explained in sufficient detail for them to understand what the claim is based on, or to have to deal with claims based on unsupported assumptions or speculation. [...] Neither is it fair to the Court that will have to ensure that the hearing is done in a fair and efficient manner. [...] 4. These are just a few typical issues that need to be resolved immediately before there is a fair trial.
-
111.
Zhao-Jie v. TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. - 2024 FC 261 - 2024-02-16
Federal Court DecisionsThe Claim alleges the plaintiff is “the Plenipotentiary of the victim Chen Zhe to deal with the matter with TD from Feb. 2, 2010” (paragraph 2), with “TD” referring to the defendant, TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. (paragraph 1). [...] The reason for this is simple – it is not fair to a defendant to have to respond to claims that are not explained in sufficient detail for them to understand what the claim is based on, or to have to deal with claims based on unsupported assumptions or speculation. [...] Neither is it fair to the Court that will have to ensure that the hearing is done in a fair and efficient manner.
-
112.
El-Nakady v. Canada - 2024 FC 254 - 2024-02-15
Federal Court DecisionsCRA’s lack of action and undue delay have been causing the plaintiff getting calls from CRA collection agency, dealing with very stressful and demanding collection calls from CRA, not having access to own refunds funds on a timely fashion and spending countless hours calling CRA call centers in hope of resolving the [...] (Right to be treated fairly and Right to complete, accurate, clear, and timely information)[.] [...] However, this general grant of jurisdiction is limited by section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act, which provides that if a statute provides for an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada of a decision of a federal board, commission, or other tribunal, then the Federal Court cannot review, restrain, set aside, or otherwise deal
-
113.
Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Rogers Communications Inc. - 2024 FC 239 - 2024-02-13
Federal Court Decisions[45] The Commissioner’s submissions recognized a public interest in fair competition (citing Resolve Business Outsourcing Income Fund v. Canadian Financial Wellness Group Inc., 2014 NSCA 98, at paras 26-31). [...] This would contravene the Government’s Rules of Engagement and the judicially endorsed principles of fairness and equality that should govern the tender process. [...] [68] Second, the Court and its Registry are familiar with confidentiality issues and can rapidly deal with requests to file a confidential version of an application record under section 11, pending discussions between counsel for the Commissioner and the respondent or its counsel.
-
114.
Hameed v. Canada (Prime Minister) - 2024 FC 242 - 2024-02-13
Federal Court DecisionsSome courts have had to deal with a 10 to 15% vacancy rate for years now. [...] Some courts have had to deal with a 10 to 15% vacancy rate for years now. [...] Failure “to deal fairly, quickly and efficiently with criminal trials inevitably leads to the community’s frustration with the judicial system and eventually to a feeling of contempt for court procedures” (p. 1221).
-
115.
Arvan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 223 - 2024-02-09
Federal Court DecisionsThe reviewing court must adopt an attitude of restraint and intervene “only where it is truly necessary to do so in order to safeguard the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative process” (Vavilov at para 13), without “reweighing and reassessing the evidence” before it (Vavilov at para 125). [...] [21] It is also true that, when an administrative decision maker does not properly deal with evidence squarely contradicting its findings of fact, the Court may intervene and infer that the decision maker overlooked the contradictory evidence when reaching its conclusion (Ozdemir v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and [...] The Officer instead adopted a calibrated approach, balancing the various factors at stake in assessing the best interests of Ms. Arvan’s child, both in the section of the Decision dealing specifically with the best interests of the child and in his conclusion.
-
116.
Breckon v. Cermaq Canada Ltd. - 2024 FC 225 - 2024-02-09
Federal Court DecisionsIt is also worth noting that Sun‐Rype was a case dealing with class certification, not with the approval of a settlement agreement. [...] This again defies the rules of fairness and reasonableness to the Class Members. [...] [134] These risks were addressed above in the likelihood of recovery subsection when dealing with the approval of the Settlement Agreement.
-
117.
Fatomiluyi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 220 - 2024-02-09
Federal Court DecisionsAssociate Chief Justice Gagné found that this extra requirement constituted external information which should have properly been put to the Applicant and granted the judicial review based on a breach of procedural fairness (at paras 9-12). [...] This provision is found in Part 12 of the Regulations, which deals with students and study permits. [...] [24] Ultimately, Justice Sadrehashemi, relying on Iriafe, found that the officer breached the applicant’s procedural fairness rights by not providing any notice of the officer’s concerns with accreditation and not providing any opportunity to respond to these concerns (Okedayo at paras 22-23).
-
118.
Centric Brands Holding LLC v. Stikeman Elliott LLP - 2024 FC 204 - 2024-02-08
Federal Court DecisionsIn support of this submission, Centric relies on Ms. Dell’Osso-Caputo’s evidence that during the Relevant Period KVZ was negotiating a licensing deal for use of the Mark with a Canadian business named Corey Vines, but that the deal was called off in June 2018 shortly after the announcement of the Agreement to sell the Mark [...] The initial release of the film was delayed by several years and no deal was ever concluded. [...] As previously noted, the Applicant relies on Ms. Dell’Osso-Caputo’s evidence that, during the Relevant Period, KVZ was negotiating a licensing deal for use of the Mark with the Canadian business, Corey Vines, but that the deal was called off in June 2018 shortly after the announcement of the Agreement to sell the Mark to
-
119.
Kalonda Lubangi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 195 - 2024-02-07
Federal Court Decisions[5] The reviewing court must therefore adopt the principle of judicial restraint, intervening only “where it is truly necessary to do so in order to safeguard the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative process” (para 13). [...] As I pointed out at the hearing of the application for judicial review, Guideline 8 is very limited and deals solely with providing procedural accommodations where necessary (see s 5.2).
-
120.
Marie-Jewell v. Salt River First Nation #195 - 2024 FC 192 - 2024-02-07
Federal Court DecisionsThis matter does not deal with a commercial or contractual agreement of a private nature, and thus the cases cited by the Respondent are of limited applicability. [...] In this case, the Court is dealing with a Decision rendered by SRFN with respect to election eligibility. [...] C. Was the Applicant denied procedural fairness? [48] My finding on the unreasonableness of the Decision is determinative and there is no need to consider the submissions on procedural fairness.
-
121.
Takeda Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - 2024 FC 106 - 2024-02-07
Federal Court Decisions[42] Overall, I found Dr. Rowlings to be a forthright and fair witness who was knowledgeable about pharmaceutical formulation and whose testimony assisted the Court. [...] Adherence to the claim language allows the claims to be read in a way in which the inventor is presumed to have intended, thereby promoting fairness and predictability: Biogen at para 72; Free World Trust at paras 31(a), (b) and 41. [...] The public is entitled to rely on the words used provided the words used are interpreted fairly and knowledgeably.” [Emphasis in the original.]
-
122.
White v. Canada Post Corporation - 2024 FC 198 - 2024-02-07
Federal Court Decisions[2] The CHRC decided not to deal with the complaint, as recommended in the Section 41 Report for Decision [Section 41 Report]. [...] The Court has no jurisdiction, though, to deal with the actions of the Applicant’s union and CPC. [...] 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
-
123.
Crawford v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 176 - 2024-02-05
Federal Court Decisions[21] Although procedural fairness was plead in the Notice of Application, the Applicant confirmed that he would not be advancing this argument. [...] It is “an approach meant to ensure that courts intervene in administrative matters only where it is truly necessary to do so in order to safeguard the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative process. [...] e) The Applicant’s H&C application was based on very broad and general information about Liberia, and did not deal specifically with his needs (which were not identified in any event) and how his needs could not be met, or that there were challenges to meet his needs, in Liberia.
-
124.
Cassidy v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 174 - 2024-02-02
Federal Court DecisionsThe principle that the individual or individuals affected by a decision should have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly underlies the duty of procedural fairness and is rooted in the right to be heard [...]. [...] Subsections 222(3) and (4) of the Act impose limitation periods on the CRA’s collection of debts, but these provisions are found in the part of the Act that deals with Collections.
-
125.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Llewellyn - 2024 FC 143 - 2024-01-31
Federal Court Decisions[18] The Decision also notes the similar complaints made by Mr. Llewellyn in 2008 to NSIRA’s predecessor, the SIRC. SIRC concluded, in accordance with its governing legislation, that it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the complaint because some allegations did not pertain to “an act or thing” done by CSIS and [...] [98] The amicus relies on Canada (Attorney General) v Hutton, 2023 FCA 45 at para 53 [Hutton], in support of the importance of considering the need to provide the parties with accurate information to permit the fair and just resolution of the Application for Judicial Review as a factor at the balancing stage. [...] However, the redactions overall are minimal and as a result, Mr. Llewellyn has a great deal of unredacted information that he can publicly refer to in his Application for Judicial Review.