7,644 result(s)
-
276.
Storry v. Canada (Warden, William Head Institution) - 1997-12-16
Federal Court DecisionsThe informant also stated that the applicant's brothers, who were fishermen, would assist in the escape, and that the applicant was accumulating money to finance the escape by dealing drugs and smuggling jewellery. [...] Second, if the requirements for procedural fairness have been met, was the decision nevertheless patently unreasonable? [...] While virtually all of the decisions provided to the Court deal only with transfers between different security levels or institutions, I see no basis for interpreting the Regulations to require a lesser form of procedural fairness.
-
277.
Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Northwest Territories - 2000-10-11
Federal Court Decisions[4] Before dealing with the motions in turn, I set out some of the background common to both. [...] . . . In our view it would be a mistake, in a process characterized by fairness, to place too much emphasis on the species of protection that the Government is claiming. [...] dealing with specifics of current or upcoming bargaining or as admissions against interest at stake before the Tribunal, cannot outweigh in the balance the importance of open and fair proceedings in dealing with PSAC's complaint before the Tribunal, that is, in the administration of justice through the Tribunal's process.
-
278.
Farooqui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2004 FC 1162 - 2004-08-23
Federal Court DecisionsThe respondent also refers to s. 162(2) of Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, ("IRPA"), that gives the Board the power to deal with procedural issues before it informally and expeditiously, in line with considerations of fairness and natural justice. [...] Therefore, I reproduce Rule 48 in its entirety below, dealing with an application to change the date of a proceeding, and only include Rule 47 in part: [...] [17] Moreover, the language used by the Board at the outset of the hearing in dealing with the issue of the request for a postponement is problematic.
-
279.
Argyracoupoulou v. Canada (Treasury Board) - 2003 FC 1304 - 2003-11-07
Federal Court Decisions5. The procedures dealing with processing a classification grievance are set out in chapter 4 of the Treasury Board Manual. [...] [8] Before dealing with this argument made by the applicants, it is worth considering the procedural fairness rule that applies to the Committee. [...] Clearly the Court is not dealing with the same circumstances in the case at bar.
-
280.
Shetty v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 1321 - 2012-11-14
Federal Court Decisionsa) Whether the Officer breached a requirement of procedural fairness by failing to convoke the Applicant for an interview; and [...] The Officer was thus under no duty to convoke the Applicant for an interview, and did not breach his duties of procedural fairness in this case. [...] dealings with his employer’s clients were “limited to working on specific projects with limited duration, and he does so in concert with the clients, rather than taking over primary control.” There is no basis in the record for the conclusion that the Applicant does not take “primary control” in his dealings with
-
281.
Gordon v. Canada - 2017 FC 454 - 2017-05-05
Federal Court Decisions[4] A case conference in person was convened in Court on Friday, March 10, 2017 to deal with these issues and to deal with the ongoing incivility which this case seems to generate. [...] It is a decision that deals in part with recusal and also deals with vexatious litigants. [...] I took an oath when I took this appointment and I try every day to satisfy that oath to act fairly, impartially and as best as I can on issues between the parties.
-
282.
Edgar v. Kitasoo First Nation - 2003 FCT 815 - 2003-06-30
Federal Court Decisions[30] ... The applicant in my view has a very strong case that a breach of fairness invalidates the Resolution. [...] Natural justice is but fairness writ large and juridically. It has been described as “fair play in action.” Nor is it a leaven to be associated only with judicial or quasi-judicial occasions. [...] [16] In Misquadis (supra) Mr Justice Lemieux gave leave to file affidavit evidence dealing with the function of aboriginal communities in various cities.
-
283.
Yachimec v. Canada (National Revenue) - 2010 FC 1333 - 2010-12-24
Federal Court DecisionsOver the course of dealing with the Applicant, counsel became aware that the Applicant had not been filing tax returns. [...] [31] Questions of procedural fairness are reviewed on a standard of correctness [...] In the Respondent’s view this does not breach any rules of procedural fairness.
-
284.
741290 Ontario Inc (Van Del Manor Nursing Home) v. Canada Sustoms and Revenue Agency - 2009 FC 985 - 2009-09-30
Federal Court DecisionsI only make reference to the Fairness applications because those were applications, taken by the Appellant. [...] I only make reference to the Fairness applications because those were applications, taken by the Appellant. [...] If the notice provisions apply, then the decision not to deal with the appeals is a decision.
-
285.
Hiebert v. Price - 2004 FC 1531 - 2004-10-28
Federal Court Decisions98. (1) Les règles établies en application de l'article 97 peuvent faire l'objet de directives du commissaire. [...] [28] As noted above, the Respondent Commissioner had delegated to the Respondent Price the authority to deal with matters pursuant to section 80 of the Regulations. [...] I see no breach of procedural fairness arising from the manner in which the Applicant pursued his request.
-
286.
Adidas AG v. 2690942 Canada Inc. (Campea) - 2008 FC 776 - 2008-06-23
Federal Court DecisionsOne must look at what is reasonable and fair under the circumstances: Smith, Kline & French Ltd. v. A.-G. Can., supra, per Addy J. at p. 109. [...] [16] Said schedule deals with questions taken under advisement at discovery by Adidas. [...] [22] This category deals with questions related to Adidas’ amended statement of claim.
-
287.
Khoury Real Estate Services Ltd. v. Canada (Public Works and Government Services) - 1996-10-03
Federal Court DecisionsA third issue concerns the substance of the application, including a consideration of the application of the principle of fairness in this case. [...] I deal with each of these issues in turn, determining each in order that all issues now raised be resolved. [...] In the invitation for proposals, PWGSC clearly reserved its authority to deal with any tenderer, or to decline to accept any proposal.
-
288.
Rally v. Telus Communications Inc. - 2013 FC 858 - 2013-08-12
Federal Court Decisions[12] I will first deal with the specific reproach made by the applicant that she was not allowed to make an opening statement. [...] But I wont deal with the motion until we come back on the, whatever date it is. [...] [36] At paragraph 32 of the impugned decision, the tribunal deals specifically with the applicant’s credibility and notes in this regard:
-
289.
Segasayo v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2007 FC 372 - 2007-04-11
Federal Court DecisionsIn particular, the applicant argues that section 87 of the Act is the only section that deals with secret evidence, and that section 87 does not refer to section 35 of the Act. [...] [22] That being said, I wish to emphasize that the amount of secret evidence in this file is fairly limited. [...] [32] As such, I maintain my position that there was no breach of the applicant’s right to procedural fairness in the case before us.
-
290.
Djilani v. Canada (Foreign Affairs) - 2017 FC 1178 - 2017-12-21
Federal Court Decisions[95] The Court cannot find that the principles of procedural fairness were violated. [...] (a) deal, directly or indirectly, in any property, wherever situated, of any politically exposed foreign person; [...] (b) enter into or facilitate, directly or indirectly, any financial transaction related to a dealing referred to in paragraph (a); or
-
291.
Restrepo Benitez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 461 - 2006-04-10
Federal Court Decisions(2) Each Division shall deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit. [...] Accordingly, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) requires the IRB to deal with proceedings before it informally, quickly and fairly. [...] [63] Subsection 162(2) provides that “[e]ach Division shall deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit”.
-
292.
Marek v. Canada (Attorney General of) - 2002 FCT 1119 - 2002-10-29
Federal Court DecisionsThis conclusion, in a sense, deals with the subsequent motion to add material. [...] As I understand it there is, here, no jurisdiction question, but merely the question of whether the procedure is fair and expeditious. [...] Judicial review does not deal with the merits and a favourable result to an inmate would simply return the matter for redetermination to the tribunal appealed from.
-
293.
Bailey v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 315 - 2014-04-01
Federal Court Decisions[24] Section 11.1 relates to “Procedural Fairness.” It states in relevant part: [...] Officers must follow procedural fairness when making a decision. Officers should: [...] The Respondent is asking the Court to accept what was, in my view, a travesty of procedural fairness in this case.
-
294.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Blackman - 2016 FC 488 - 2016-05-03
Federal Court DecisionsConsequently, no deference is afforded to the decision in terms of procedural fairness. [...] [36] Strictly speaking, given the Court’s finding on the issue of procedural fairness, it may not be necessary to deal with the issue of reasonableness in the decision made. [...] There is a defect in procedural fairness. [43] The Court therefore finds that the decision made on March 25, 2015, by the independent chairperson is invalid with regard to procedural fairness.
-
295.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Burnell - 1997-07-02
Federal Court Decisionsiii) the CHRC knew of the complaint as early as June 16, 1992, yet neglected to deal with it at that time; [...] Rather, there must be some concrete basis in fact which demonstrates the delay is so unacceptable or disabling in nature so as to preclude a fair and complete investigation from being conducted. [...] ...The question is simply whether or not on the record there has been demonstrated evidence of prejudice of sufficient magnitude to impact on the fairness of the hearing.
-
296.
Pinter v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 986 - 2007-10-01
Federal Court Decisions[31] I propose to first deal with Issue 2. [32] Issue 2 Did the officer breach procedural fairness by not disclosing post-application evidence? [...] [34] I agree with the respondent that affidavit evidence may be submitted on judicial review when the evidence deals with procedural fairness issues. [...] [37] Because of my finding on this issue, I need not deal with the remaining issues.
-
297.
Cayer v. Canada (Revenue Agency) - 2009 FC 1195 - 2009-11-20
Federal Court Decisions[30] Paragraph 8 of the Guidelines explains the basic purpose of the legislation as allowing “for a common-sense approach in dealing with taxpayers who, because of personal misfortune or circumstances beyond their control, could not comply with a statutory requirement for income tax purposes”. [...] [31] Part II of the Guidelines deal with the cancellation or waiver of penalties and interest. [...] One deals with the appropriateness of the penalties in light of the conduct of the taxpayer in making a return, the other with exceptional circumstances which may justify the cancellation of the penalties on fairness considerations.
-
298.
Fatlum v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 1495 - 2022-11-02
Federal Court Decisions[10] The Applicant responded to this first procedural fairness letter on October 22, 2019. [...] I will only note that in Qu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2000 CanLII 17132 (FC), [2000] 4 F.C. 71, rev’d in 2001 FCA 399, the application judge was dealing with a predecessor of paragraph 34(1)(a), and this Court never had to deal with the meaning of “subversion” on appeal. [...] This supports the argument that the Minister is better equipped to deal with such issues in the context of an application for ministerial exemption.
-
299.
Ariaratnam v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2023 FC 1248 - 2023-09-15
Federal Court Decisions[12] Following the parties’ response to the Supplementary Report, the Commission issued a final decision [Decision] not to deal with the complaint. [...] C. Breach of Procedural Fairness [33] I am not persuaded that the Applicant has established a breach of procedural fairness. [...] 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
-
300.
Odosashvili v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 308 - 2014-03-31
Federal Court DecisionsIn Tursunbayev v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 FC 504, [2012] FCJ No 540 at para 42, Justice Mactavish set out the duty of Minister’s counsel duty of candour and fair dealing: [...] Individuals representing the Crown before courts and tribunals always have an obligation to be candid and fair in their dealings both with litigants and with the courts and tribunals themselves. [...] I agree with this observation completely, and would add that the duty of candour and fair dealing takes on added importance and significance when a person’s liberty is at stake.