7,644 result(s)
-
576.
Do v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2017 FC 1064 - 2017-11-23
Federal Court DecisionsThe Respondent agreed that the Officer committed a breach of procedural fairness. [...] [23] In dealing with the issue of costs, rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, provides that costs should not be awarded unless the Court finds “special reasons.” Jurisprudence makes it clear that being wrong is not enough to warrant costs. [...] [27] In fact, I find the Officer’s conduct displays a reckless disregard for procedural fairness.
-
577.
Altagas Marketing Inc. v. Canada - 2004 FC 1682 - 2004-11-30
Federal Court Decisions[4] By the present motion the Crown seeks documents from the Plaintiffs dealing with their knowledge or expectations as to the royalty rate: [...] This relief is sought on the basis of the amendments dealing with rescission. [...] Such documents, assessed in the light of the issues raised in the pleadings are relevant, whether or not one construes relevancy generously or with fair latitude.
-
578.
Murray v. Canada (Human Rights Commission) - 2004 FC 1541 - 2004-11-02
Federal Court DecisionsEven assuming that some interviews occurred during this period, there is no apparent justification for the delay in dealing with Murray's complaint. [...] "The basic test to ensure fairness and to avoid a reasonable apprehension [...] [27] As required by the principles of fairness, the investigator also interviewed key persons in CRA in order to deal with the allegations.
-
579.
Lanno v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency) - 2004 FC 932 - 2004-06-28
Federal Court Decisions· Mr. Lanno requested, by letters dated August 2 and 7, 2003, that the second level fairness response be reconsidered. [...] Parliament has given broad discretion to the CCRA, the delegate of the Minister, under the Fairness Provisions. [...] In fact, much of Mr. Sarcello's decision deals with analyzing whether circumstances beyond Mr. Lanno's control prevented him from filing a notice.
-
580.
Massroua v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2022 FC 1394 - 2022-10-18
Federal Court Decisionsample jurisdiction to all divisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board to make findings of fact and law(IRPA subsection 162(1)), and the general obligation to deal with all proceedings “as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit” (IRPA subsection 162(2)). [...] In that sense, the prior decision did not deal with the same question and therefore the doctrine did not apply. [...] He argued that the prior findings were tainted because they were reached by a process that had denied him procedural fairness.
-
581.
Berhad v. Canada - 2002 FCT 298 - 2002-03-19
Federal Court Decisions[23] In the present instance, as a matter of fairness and common sense, I ought not to allow the amendment, for it will not help the determination of any right claimed in the action on its merits. [...] Written submissions of 146 pages and a table of contents may be mind numbing, however competent opposing counsel must read and be prepared to deal with the submissions in their entirety. [...] This not only places a reasonable limit upon what the responding party must deal with, but also keeps the work required of the Court within reasonable limits.
-
582.
Connolly v. Canada Post Corp. - 2002 FCT 185 - 2002-02-20
Federal Court DecisionsHe also seeks costs of out-of-pocket disbursements or expenses incurred for telephone, postal costs, photocopying and office supplies in his dealings with the Commission, as well as with the Court. [...] [4] Before dealing with the principal concerns raised by Mr. Connolly, a brief overview of the background may put this matter in context. [...] It can only be set aside if it is established that the decision of the Commission violated a principle of fairness owed to Mr. Connolly or that the decision was not based on evidence before the Commission, or that the Commission otherwise erred in law.
-
583.
N.R. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 425 - 2015-04-08
Federal Court DecisionsHe argues, however, that he was denied procedural fairness in this matter because the Minister failed to disclose information regarding the fate of other MV Sun Sea passengers who had returned to Sri Lanka. [...] II. The Board’s Failure to Deal with N.R.’s Application to Adduce Post-hearing Evidence [...] The Board’s failure to deal with a properly constituted application to adduce post-hearing evidence constitutes a breach of procedural fairness: Howlader v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 817 at paras. 3-4, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1041.
-
584.
Stevens v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2002 FCT 2 - 2002-01-03
Federal Court DecisionsThe plaintiff is evidently grasping at straws, searching for some evidence that Commission counsel acted improperly in his subsequent dealings with Commissioner Parker. [...] [23] The Plaintiff's third argument is that the Prothonotary erred in concluding that it was not necessary to deal with his request to examine Commissioner Parker out of court pursuant to Rule 271. [...] The Prothonotary reviewed authorities dealing with principles of deliberative secrecy and the circumstances in which that secrecy can be pierced.
-
585.
Laplante v. Canada (Food Inspection Agency) - 2004 FC 1345 - 2004-09-30
Federal Court DecisionsConsequently, the Committee failed to deal with all the points at issue. [...] The classification recommended to the deputy head or nominee must be fair, equitable and consistent with the classification principles. [...] In this sense, the reasons for the decision under review are inadequate, and another component of procedural fairness was breached.
-
586.
Xu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 718 - 2006-06-07
Federal Court Decisions[21] In the same manner, if it is established that a breach of procedural fairness occurred during the show cause hearing, the Court must intervene. [...] [23] I will deal first with the preliminary argument raised by the respondent. [...] [30] In the circumstances, the Court must conclude that insofar as those alleged breaches of procedural fairness are concerned, there is res judicata.
-
587.
Chung v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 16 - 2014-01-07
Federal Court DecisionsThus, the Respondent submits that in the circumstances of this case the duty of fairness was met. [...] [63] Browne v Dunn, above, deals with a point of procedural fairness and reads in relevant part as follows: [...] that if you intend to impeach a witness you are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give him an opportunity of making any explanation which is open to him; and, as it seems to me, that is not only a rule of professional practice in the conduct of a case, but is essential to fair play and fair dealing with witnesses.
-
588.
Angell v. Canada (National Revenue) - 2006 FC 1097 - 2006-09-14
Federal Court Decisions(the Act), and non-compliance with this statutory duty and Minister’s duty of fairness prejudicially affects the applicants’ right to a fair and equitable hearing on the merits of the assessment before the Tax Court of Canada (TCC). [...] [44] The parties clearly put a great deal of effort in preparing their cases. [...] [56] The legislative scheme therefore provides a great deal of flexibility.
-
589.
Sharma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1253 - 2015-11-05
Federal Court DecisionsB. Did the First Secretary breach procedural fairness? C. Was the First Secretary’s decision reasonable? [...] [21] First, the respondent submits the First Secretary did not breach procedural fairness. [...] [25] I need not deal with the issue of evidence that post-dated the First Secretary’s decision as the applicant informed the Court that he was not relying on evidence that was not before the First Secretary.
-
590.
Tamas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 1361 - 2012-11-26
Federal Court DecisionsThe RPD also found that Hungary is a functioning democracy with free and fair elections. [...] [52] The Applicants have raised a range of grounds for review and I will deal with each of them in turn. [...] Procedural Fairness [53] The Applicants say the RPD does not deal with their request for an adjournment in its Decision, so that the reasons on this point are not known.
-
591.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Leonarduzzi - 2001 FCT 529 - 2001-05-25
Federal Court DecisionsThis is not mandated by the legislation in question, and flies in the face of simple fairness and common sense ...". [...] We are dealing here with the powers of an administrative tribunal in relation to its procedures. [...] This is not mandated by the legislation in question, and flies in the face of simple fairness and common sense.
-
592.
Netupsky v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency) - 2003 FCT 578 - 2003-05-08
Federal Court Decisions[8] By letter dated the 5th of January 1998, the Applicant's request for relief under the Fairness Provisions of the Income Tax Act was denied. [...] In Cheng v. Canada[10], I applied the foregoing to a judicial review of a fairness review, a discretionary decision. [...] [13] There was no evidence before me to indicate that the Applicant had, during his earlier dealings with tax officials in relation to his income tax affairs for the years 1988 and 1989, raised the issue of de facto bankruptcy.
-
593.
Eakin v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2019 FC 1639 - 2019-12-18
Federal Court DecisionsThe Chair stated that he could not deal with the matter that day and adjourned the hearing to November 19, 2018. [...] Procedural fairness was, at best, an afterthought as opposed to being at the forefront. [...] Mr. Eakin argues that the delays themselves breached his right to procedural fairness.
-
594.
Simon v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2013 FC 1117 - 2013-11-04
Federal Court Decisionsc) fails to meet the requirements of procedural fairness in accordance with the doctrine of legitimate expectations arising from the past history of dealings between the Crown and the Applicants (Amended Notice of Application, Joint Application Record [JAR], volume 2, p 379-380). [...] 3. Does the Decision breach the Applicants’ rights to procedural fairness? [...] 2. Did the Minister breach the Applicants’ right to procedural fairness?
-
595.
Homauoni v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 1403 - 2021-12-13
Federal Court Decisionsa) Did the RAD breach procedural fairness? b) Was the RAD’s decision to not admit the Report unreasonable? [...] [53] While the Guidelines are not binding, they are indicative of the type of considerations that the IRB may take into account when dealing with vulnerable persons. [...] [65] Given my decision to return the matter back for redetermination, I will not deal with the Applicant’s submission with respect to a sur place claim.
-
596.
DRL Vacations Ltd. v. Halifax Port Authority - 2005 FC 860 - 2005-06-15
Federal Court Decisions[3] Even if the process was truly a request for proposals (or "RFP"), DRL says that the HPA had a duty to deal with it fairly and in good faith. [...] As a result, the HPA submits that this Court is without jurisdiction to deal with DRL's application. [...] These should be left to a Court with the jurisdiction to deal with them.
-
597.
Alook v. Bigstone Cree First Nation - 2007 FC 853 - 2007-08-24
Federal Court Decisions[20] Both issues identified by the applicants raise questions of procedural fairness. [...] [24] I will deal first with the propriety of the procedure followed by the second Appeal Board in this matter. [...] [31] I will also deal briefly with the allegation that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed with respect to the second Appeal Board.
-
598.
Ushenin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2003 FCT 315 - 2003-03-17
Federal Court DecisionsIt may be preferable if the visa officer would inform the applicant of this concern but failure to do so does not violate the duty of fairness. [...] In depriving him of that opportunity, the duty of fairness was breached. [...] In my view, the duty of fairness required the officer to alert Mr. Ushenin of her concerns.
-
599.
Badal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2003 FCT 311 - 2003-03-14
Federal Court Decisions2. Did the Board err in law or breach the duty of fairness in relying on the reasons of the previous panel? [...] This contention is related to the second issue in this case and I will deal with it below. [...] B. Did the Board err in law or breach the duty of fairness in relying on the reasons of the previous panel?
-
600.
Edwards v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency) - 2002 FCT 618 - 2002-05-31
Federal Court DecisionsThe applicants first applied by letter dated July 27, 2000 for cancellation or waiver of interest under the Fairness provisions of the Income Tax Act to the First Level Fairness Committee. [...] A report was prepared by Heather Campbell and forwarded to the First Level Fairness Committee for review. [...] The purpose of this legislative provision is to allow Revenue Canada, Taxation, to administer the tax system more fairly, by allowing for the application of common sense in dealing with taxpayers who, because of personal misfortune or circumstances beyond their control, are unable to meet deadlines or comply with rules