Advanced Search

Ade-Ogunade v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2021 FC 195 - 2021-03-03

If the decision on admissibility of evidence by the RAD was made in error, was the duty of fairness owed to the applicants breached?   [...]   of the RAD’s refusal to admit new evidence; (b) the reasonableness of the RAD’s finding they could live safely in the IFA; and (c) the reasonableness of the RAD’s finding it was reasonable for them to relocate to the IFA. In my respectful view, the Respondent has identified the main issues, which I will deal with shortly.

Canadian National Railway Company v. BNSF Railway Company - 2019 FC 281 - 2019-03-07

process, the parties discussed and agreed on terms for a protective order that would define two levels of confidential documents and information, “Confidential Information” and “Confidential Information – Counsel’s Eyes Only,” and that would prescribe how a party receiving such documents and information may deal therewith.   [...]  (b) the salutary effects of the confidentiality order, including the effects on the right of civil litigants to a fair trial, outweigh its deleterious effects, including the effects on the right to free expression, which in this context includes the public interest in open and accessible court proceedings.

Ravichandran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 811 - 2018-08-02

[67] The Applicants say that the threshold for needing to deal with compelling reasons was met based on their testimony accepted by the Officer and as a result it was unreasonable for the Officer to not say why they did not fall within the provisions of subsection 108(4).   [...]  [76] In my view, the Officer fairly considered the evidence and provided reasons that enable the Applicants and the Court to understand why she came to the conclusions she did with respect to current risk of persecution and torture.

Newbould v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FC 326 - 2017-03-29

Concerns about procedural fairness or bias, the presence of an important legal or constitutional issue, or the fact that all parties have consented to early recourse to the courts are not exceptional circumstances allowing parties to bypass an administrative process, as long as that process allows the issues to be raised   [...]  This is a “middle-of-the-line” case and parallels Girouard v Inquiry Committee Constituted under the Procedures for Dealing with Complaints made to the Canadian Judicial Council about federally appointed Judges, 2014 FC 1175, [2014] FCJ No 1360 [Girouard].

Strathearn Consulting Inc. v. Kirshenblatt - 2015 FC 1404 - 2015-12-21

[10] The Prothonotary stated that “it was fair that there be an inspection of this house at some point” noting that the Appellant (Plaintiff in the action) alleged that the design of 33 Strathearn was copied through visits to the property.   [...]  As always, facts do matter and they are particularly important when dealing with motions such as those under Rule 249 which require the Court to balance any number of factors relevant to the three main interests at play: those of the party requesting the inspection or samples, those of the party in possession of the

Canada (National Revenue) v. Lee - 2015 FC 634 - 2015-05-13

c) to determine whether it may be appropriate to reassess Mr. Lee under section 160 of the Act or section 325 of the ETA in respect of the transfer of property to him by a person with whom he does not deal at arm’s length for consideration that was less than the fair market value of the property at a time when the

Scheuer v. Canada - 2015 FC 74 - 2015-01-20

I will deal with each of these in turn. (1) Reliance on Ficek [17] The Defendants submit that the Prothonotary improperly considered the case of Ficek, above, as evidence, since judges on motions to strike are required to limit their consideration to the language of the pleadings: Imperial Tobacco at paras 23-24.   [...]  [24] “Proximity” is the term used to describe a relationship that is sufficiently “close and direct” to render it fair and reasonable to require the defendant, in conducting his or her affairs, to be mindful of the plaintiff’s legitimate interests: Cooper at paras 32-33; Taylor at para 66.

Ruszo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2013 FC 1004 - 2013-10-01

After dealing with the persecution versus discrimination issue, the RPD then proceeded to conclude that the Applicants had failed to provide sufficient “objective evidence in the material aspects of these claims and, alternatively, the availability of state protection” (my emphasis).   [...]  This included evidence that the most recent election was considered to have been free and fair, and that civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces.

Riach v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2011 FC 1230 - 2011-10-28

Given that this issue is somewhat related to the one initially raised by the applicant and given the absence of prejudice or opposition from the respondent, I will deal with both issues.   [...]  Would he think that it is more likely than not that [the decision maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.”

Kheder Alcharic v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2011 FC 968 - 2011-08-02

Adequacy of reasons is a procedural fairness issue, which attracts the correctness standard.   [...]  [42] The RPD then goes on to deal with the well-foundedness of the Applicants’ claim as a separate ground.

Merck & Co. Inc. v. Canada (Health) - 2010 FC 1042 - 2010-10-22

[20] As mentioned, the ‘965 patent deals with the combination of a topical carbonic anhydrase inhibitor (e.g., dorzolamide) with a topical beta-adrenergic antagonist (e.g., timolol).   [...]  A fair reading of the patent, including the many examples of co-formulation, would lead a skilled reader to conclude that co-formulation was achieved by routine measures.

Collard v. Betsiamites Innu Nation (Election Code) - 2009 FC 812 - 2009-08-11

On the weekend of August 15, 2008, the applicant noticed a great deal of beer circulating in the community and suspected that bribes were being distributed for the elections.   [...]   appearance of conflict of interest and bias, the applicant submits that an informed person, viewing the matter realistically and practically and having thought the matter through, would think that it is more likely than not that the electoral officer, whether consciously or unconsciously, would be unable to decide fairly.

Budakh v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2008 FC 363 - 2008-03-18

This phrasing is similar to the phrasing found in section 115 of the Act, dealing with the deportation of persons who have been granted refugee protection.   [...]  The dicta of the Supreme Court of Canada in Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] S.C.J. No. 3 [Suresh] is therefore applicable to this certification procedure; although there is no requirement for an oral hearing, the certification procedure requires that the Minister or a delegate act fairly,