Advanced Search

Williams v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 166 - 2012-02-07

[27] The Applicant says that in Curry v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2006 FC 1350, Justice Douglas Campbell held at paragraph 10 that it was not fair or proper for an officer to act contrary to the IP5 Manual and not consider all the factors before him or her.   [...]  The Applicant agrees and says that, in exercising this discretion, officers must give a great deal of attention to the best interests of children affected by their decisions (see Legault, above, at paragraph 11).

White v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2011 FC 1043 - 2011-09-02

[5] Mr. White argues that the Director failed to treat him fairly, rendered an unreasonable decision, breached his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and failed to consider whether his removal to Jamaica would violate Canada’s international obligations.   [...]  [29] The Director acknowledged that Mr. White’s father had suffered a great deal since his son’s accident and, being 65 and retired, it would be difficult for him to return to Jamaica to care for his son.

Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2009 FC 623 - 2009-06-09

[22] The Officer acknowledged the decision of the Federal Court in Biro v. Canada, 2007 FC 776 where the Court decided that the absence of a fair trial process may have negatively affected the ability of the applicant to present a full defence at trial.   [...]  [53] The language of these provisions strengthens my opinion that the starting point in dealing with an application for protection is the factual determination in accordance with subsection 112(3).

Sfetkopoulos v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2008 FC 33 - 2008-01-10

were it not for the decision over 20 years ago that section 7 authorizes them, (see Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 481), in the determination of what is contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, to pass judgment not only on the procedural fairness but also on the substantive correctness of the law.   [...]  I do not intend to deal with this case further. It is under appeal. Further, I have found that the unnecessary restrictions on access in subsection 41(b.1) cannot be overcome by a forced monopoly for PPS product for those who cannot grow for themselves or find an available designated producer.

Lloyd's Register North America Inc. v. Dalziel - 2004 FC 822 - 2004-06-09

It is fair to say that, without classification, a ship cannot be insured, cannot obtain financing and will likely not have cargos to carry, as cargo underwriters may be reluctant to participate in the contract of carriage for an uninsured merchant ship.   [...]  It is illogical to find, therefore, that classification in Canada may proceed on a purely local level or that it is somehow not integral to shipping in Canada, especially when one considers that Canada has acceded to many of the relevant international conventions that deal with shipping standards.

Toys "R" Us (Canada) Ltd. v. Manjel Inc. - 2003 FCT 283 - 2003-03-07

These included candy, confectionery baby food, snack food, chocolate, as well as a fair amount of seasonal items that were sold during the Christmas, Easter, Back-to-School, Halloween and Valentine periods.   [...]  [77] With regard to the extent in which the plaintiffs' trade-mark has become known, the evidence establishes that their mark has been known since 1984 as applied to the operation of retail stores selling toys and children's wear apparel, and that the plaintiffs have spent a great deal of money on advertising and marketing

Canada (Attorney General) v. Singh - 2000-04-04

In the spirit of the Supreme Court of Canada in Mossop, deference must prevail over interventionism in so far as the CHRC deals with matters of fact-finding and adjudication, particularly with respect to matters over which the CRHC has been vested with such wide discretion...   [...]  Although it may seem commonplace, it may be wise to remind ourselves of the statutory guidance given by the federal Interpretation Act which asserts that statutes are deemed to be remedial and are thus to be given such fair, large and liberal interpretation as will best ensure that their objects are attained.

Granger v. Canada (Conseil du Trésor) - 1998-03-19

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the theory of legitimate expectation is in fact a rule of procedural fairness.25 The other cases cited by the parties are to the same effect.26 Neither the evidence nor the interpretation of the provisions of the compensation plan have satisfied me that there was an express   [...]  (i) a provision of a statute, or of a regulation, by-law, direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, dealing with terms and conditions of employment, or (ii) a provision of a collective agreement or an arbitral award, or

Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi-Aventis - 2011 FC 1486 - 2011-12-06

And Claim 9 deals with comprising the formation of a salt in acetone.   [...]  Q. Fair enough. A. It’s a statement of fact, but I didn’t say it promised it.   [...]  [236] In the present case, the evidence shows that there has been a use of clopidogrel that should be considered in the circumstance of "fair dealing".

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mahjoub - 2005 FC 1596 - 2005-11-25

· Mr. Geswaldo is not aware of any process for CIC to become involved in dealing with complaints about conditions or treatment.   [...]  He has been detained for over five years and the prospects of his removal being a "done deal" are, in my view, remote.   [...]  The Court concluded, at paragraph 85, that the phrase must be given a "fair, large and liberal interpretation in accordance with international norms".

Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Trust for Rheumatology Research - 2018 FC 259 - 2018-03-07

[109] Although the parties appear, at first glance, to have wildly diverging views on the common general knowledge, in fact there is a great deal of overlap between their positions.   [...]  As will be seen, the Court accepts this position as a fair reflection of the evidence.   [...]  It was also not clear what should be done to deal with the shortened duration of response/HACA responses that had been identified in the prior art.

Fournier Pharma Inc. v. Canada (Health) - 2012 FC 741 - 2012-07-05

Both deal with the drug fenofibrate; however, each involves a different patent.   [...]  [15] Fournier filed two affidavits sworn by its proposed expert, Dr. Fernando Muzzio: the first dealing with the issue of infringement and the second dealing with the issues relating to invalidity.   [...]  [133] It is clear that the “admission” amounts to nothing more than reiterating an earlier statement found at page 2204 of the Respondent’s Record that “in reality every time a pharmaceutical scientist attempts to implement a formulation they would need to do some fairly routine amount of work, a few trials, to see, you

Montana Band v. Canada - 2006 FC 261 - 2006-02-28

He also told them they would be paid a fair price for the land. He strongly advised them to either give or sell enough land for this purpose and to think it over.   [...]  The Crown alleges that the Department of Indian Affairs fairly treated Bobtail and the other parties, allowed them to return to their former way of life and residence on-reserve, and took care of them for the rest of their lives.   [...]  Further, the Crown must uphold its honour in all of its dealings with Aboriginal peoples.