7,645 result(s)
-
151.
Rahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1695 - 2023-12-15
Federal Court DecisionsThe issue here is whether the term as used in the Immigration Act is sufficiently certain to be workable, fair and constitutional. [...] [18] The Respondent submits that the Decision is thorough, well written and appropriately deals with the issue of intent.
-
152.
Sidhu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2023 FC 1681 - 2023-12-14
Federal Court Decisions[7] In assessing those Decisions, the standard of review applicable to the procedural fairness issue raised by Mr. Sidhu is whether the process followed in reaching the Decisions was fair, having regard to all of the circumstances. [...] [9] For the reasons set forth below, I find that the processes followed by the Officer and the Delegate were fair, having regard to all of the circumstances. [...] [34] For the record, and more broadly speaking, the process leading up to the Officer’s Decision was more than fair in the circumstances.
-
153.
Steelhead LNG (ASLNG) Ltd. v. ARC Resources Ltd. - 2023 FC 1684 - 2023-12-13
Federal Court Decisions[62] The only relevant portion of Mr. Ojeda’s evidence in chief pertains to Steelhead’s dealings with KBR in 2016. [...] Fair? A. Fair. Q. And specific application contemplates that decisions will be driven, for example, by things like proximity to land, need to protect the seawater, things like that? [...] This is a fair approach that acknowledges the range of possible outcomes in a proceeding such as this one.
-
154.
Dmitrienko v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1678 - 2023-12-12
Federal Court DecisionsThe Applicant asserts VAC erroneously relied on the chapter dealing with hypertension and vascular impairment (Table 13), as opposed to that dealing with cardiorespiratory impairment (Table 12). [...] Did the Reconsideration Panel breach the duty of procedural fairness? [...] [41] Thus, while the Applicant seeks to make a procedural fairness argument, the Respondent rightly points out that the Applicant’s arguments do not deal with procedure.
-
155.
Giffen v. TM Mobile Inc. - 2023 FC 1666 - 2023-12-11
Federal Court DecisionsI find the Decision was reasonable and there was no breach of procedural fairness. [...] [69] First, I note that Wilson is a case dealing with the expansion of unjust dismissal protection to non‐unionized workers who are dismissed without cause but with notice. [...] [93] The Respondent disagrees with the Applicant’s allegation of a breach of procedural fairness and argues that the Applicant had an adequate opportunity to be heard and the process was procedurally fair.
-
156.
Kalappurakkal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1673 - 2023-12-11
Federal Court DecisionsThe Applicant argues that failing to do so breached the duty of procedural fairness. [...] [17] As such, by noting an issue already known to the Applicant and noted in the previous RAD decision, I find the RAD did not breach the duty of procedural fairness. [...] The RAD observed the Applicant entered into a private and unofficial deal with a government employee that went awry.
-
157.
Rebel News Network Ltd. v. Canada (Elections) - 2023 FC 1650 - 2023-12-07
Federal Court DecisionsHowever, it endorsed spending limits as an essential means of promoting fairness in referenda and elections (Harper at para 61). [...] The overarching objective of the regime is to promote electoral fairness by creating equality in the political discourse. [...] The advancement of equality and fairness in elections ultimately encourages public confidence in the electoral system.
-
158.
Long Plain First Nation v. Meeches - 2023 FC 1646 - 2023-12-06
Federal Court Decisions[10] The Applicants raise many issues including procedural fairness issues and errors that they say meet the first branch of this test. [...] The Election Appeal Committee hurried this election and thus many of the procedural fairness steps they were entitled to did not happen. [...] [20] Given that the Applicants did not meet the irreparable harm branch of the test, there is no need for me to deal with this branch.
-
159.
John Doe v. Canada - 2023 FC 1636 - 2023-12-05
Federal Court DecisionsThere will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. [...] Health Canada held a great deal of personal medical information about the Plaintiffs, and the risks of disclosure of that information were foreseeable. [...] Proximity arises in those relationships where the parties are in such a “close and direct” relationship that it would be “just and fair having regard to that relationship to impose a duty of care in law upon the defendant” (Cooper, at paras. 32 and 34).
-
160.
Lachapelle v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1628 - 2023-12-05
Federal Court DecisionsWas there a breach of the duty of procedural fairness owed to the applicant? [...] [27] Part II of the Code deals with occupational health and safety for workplaces under federal jurisdiction. [...] The content of the duty of fairness will depend on the factors so identified.
-
161.
Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1554 - 2023-12-05
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). [...] [36] It is 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 [...] They serve to state “how and why a decision was made,” demonstrate that “the decision was made in a fair and lawful manner,” and shield against “the perception of arbitrariness in the exercise of public power” (Vavilov at para 79).
-
162.
AbbVie Corporation v. Jamp Pharma Corporation - 2023 FC 1520 - 2023-12-04
Federal Court DecisionsThese specific concerns will be addressed when dealing with their evidence. [...] I think we should deal with the merits” (December 14 Trial Transcript at 2510). [...] (3) La seconde personne peut faire une demande reconventionnelle afin d’obtenir une déclaration:
-
163.
Johnson v. Canadian Tennis Association - 2023 FC 1605 - 2023-11-30
Federal Court Decisions[would] think that it is more likely than not that the [decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly”: Firsov at para 56, citing Yukon Francophone School Board, Education Area #23 v Yukon (Attorney General), 2015 SCC at paras 20-21, 26. [...] Rather, proper reply submissions are “limited to issues that a party had no opportunity to deal with, or which could not reasonably have been anticipated”: Deegan v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 960 at para 121. [...] [39] Justice Grammond recently held that “[c]ase management judges do not show bias simply by discharging their duty of managing the proceeding in a fair and efficient manner or by requiring compliance with the Federal Courts Rules”: Onischuk at para 44.
-
164.
Gaskin v. Rogers - 2023 FC 1588 - 2023-11-28
Federal Court DecisionsThe addition of these new grounds provide the Court with the necessary tools to deal directly and expeditiously with dysfunctional or destructive conduct in the litigation process and essentially “nip it in the bud.” [...] They were accordingly provided an opportunity by Order dated September 12, 2023, in accordance with subsection 74(2) and procedural fairness, to show cause why the Statement of Claim should not be removed from the Court file (Show Cause Order). [...] omissions tantamount to fraudulent misconduct, willful negligence, fraudulent preference in the context of a scheme, and concealment of fraud in violation of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act, 2003 in the context of negotiating, administering and implementing practices related to its Master Services Agreement.”
-
165.
Vachon Estate v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1582 - 2023-11-27
Federal Court Decisions[37] The analysis that follows will therefore deal with the orders sought by the applicants that are not already moot. [...] However, the hearing officer concluded that the expropriation was indefensible, that it was neither fair nor sound and that on the merits it should not be approved. [...] [101] At the end of the hearing, I asked the parties to discuss amongst themselves what amount they thought would be fair to award as costs to the winning party, and they agreed on an amount of $2,700.
-
166.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Aéroports de Montréal - 2023 FC 1562 - 2023-11-24
Federal Court Decisions[37] Section 5.04 is also relevant because it is the only provision of the Ground Lease that deals specifically with [translation] “Grants in Lieu of Taxes”, now known as “PILTs”: [...] [54] To deal with this issue, the Court must answer the following questions: [...] Accordingly, the ATT arbitration clause applies and the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the issue raised by ADM.
-
167.
Hassan v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2023 FC 1550 - 2023-11-22
Federal Court DecisionsThe duty of procedural fairness is “eminently variable,” inherently flexible and context-specific. [...] A court assessing a procedural fairness question is required to ask whether the procedure was fair, having regard to all of the circumstances [see Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), supra at para 54]. [...] I will deal with both aspects of this argument here, neither of which have merit.
-
168.
Gaskin v. Canada - 2023 FC 1542 - 2023-11-21
Federal Court Decisions[2] In accordance with procedural fairness, the Show Cause Order notified Mr. Gaskin that the Court apprehended that: (a) the allegations made in the Statement of Claim were rambling, making it difficult to ascertain what cause of action was being asserted; (b) the action was duplicative and/or touched on matters raised in [...] T-353-22 whereby Mr. Gaskin was seeking an order to quash or set aside a decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) that declined to exercise its discretion under section 41(1)(e) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to deal with Mr. Gaskin’s complaint of discrimination against Rogers Communications Inc. (Rogers).
-
169.
Kooshkaki v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 1541 - 2023-11-21
Federal Court DecisionsThe 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 [...] Given the centrality of the family ties to Officer’s reason to refuse the application, and for reasons that follow why it is unreasonable, it is not necessary for me to deal with the Officer’s finding on other issues referred to in the GCMS notes. [...] [22] Since I have set aside the Officer's decision because it is unreasonable, it is not necessary to address the procedural fairness issues raised.
-
170.
Priest v. Canada (Revenue Agency) - 2023 FC 1537 - 2023-11-21
Federal Court DecisionsThe Officer also noted that the Respondent did not consider it prejudicial to deal with those complaints. [...] Commission to deal with complaint 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 [...] B. Procedural fairness [31] Mr. Priest argues that the Decision was procedurally unfair.
-
171.
Moushoom v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1533 - 2023-11-20
Federal Court DecisionsT-1120-21) dealing with the claims previously advanced in the Moushoom Class Action relating to delays, denials and gaps in the provision of essential services between April 1, 1991 and December 11, 2007 [Trout Class Action]. [...] In its decision, this Court urged the parties to work towards achieving a fair and just settlement. [...] [70] Class Counsel assert that the Final Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the Class Members.
-
172.
Matti v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1527 - 2023-11-17
Federal Court DecisionsThere are three exceptions, however: (1) the material assists the court to understand the general background circumstances of the judicial review; (2) the material is relevant to an issue of procedural fairness or natural justice; and (3) the material highlights a complete absence of evidence before the decision maker: [...] [15] Otherwise, the Respondent generally did not object to documents that were contained in the CTR, including the record of employment, certain excerpts from an article dealing with personal protective equipment, and a letter from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. [...] • 39–-: excerpt of article dealing with personal protective equipment; and
-
173.
McMullen v. Piikani First Nation - 2023 FC 1531 - 2023-11-17
Federal Court DecisionsHe claims that Piikani’s continuing course of conduct has deprived him of a fair trial in violation of Article 14 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and breached his rights to procedural fairness and his security protected by section 7 of the Charter. [...] The doctrine aims to protect the integrity of the adjudicative process against abuses and to achieve fairness for all parties involved: Toronto (City) v CUPE, Local 79, 2003 SCC 63 at para 37. [...] First, significant court and party resources have been spent dealing with the Applicant’s repeated attempts to enforce the indemnity agreement in this Court, despite having commenced his own proceedings to do so in the Alberta courts.
-
174.
Responsible Plastic Use Coalition v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change) - 2023 FC 1511 - 2023-11-16
Federal Court Decisions[...] [...] [60] CEPA is organized into twelve different parts: Part 4 deals with “Pollution Prevention”, Part 7 deals with “Controlling Pollution and Managing Wastes”, and as relevant to this Application, Part 5 deals with “Controlling Toxic Substances”, which includes maintaining Schedule 1. [...] c) fournir des renseignements et faire des recommandations concernant toute question liée à une substance, notamment en ce qui touche les mesures à prendre pour limiter la présence de celle-ci dans l’environnement. [...] To help ensure that this finding was fair, a neutral party within the Department conducted an independent review of the scientific analysis of the notices of objection.
-
175.
Bolduc v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1497 - 2023-11-10
Federal Court DecisionsWhether termed “correctness” or “no standard of review,” the question the Court asks in assessing matters of procedural fairness is whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances: Canadian Pacific at para 54. [...] The Court will not exercise its discretion to decide whether that determination was reasonable and procedurally fair despite its mootness. [...] I will not address the third procedural fairness issue [Issue D(3)], which relates solely to the second Situational Assessment, which I consider moot.