Advanced Search

Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - 2015 FC 1016 - 2015-09-11

However, in so holding, he noted that there might well be circumstances where fairness would require a different result but found that the case before him was not such a case.   [...]  Accordingly, in my view, fairness requires that Lilly be allowed to pursue this prohibition application.   [...]  The test, rather, is whether the skilled person had good reason to pursue predictable solutions or solutions that provide a “fair expectation of success”.

Canada (Public Services and Procurement) v. Canada (Information Commissioner) - 2024 FC 918 - 2024-06-17

4 (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente partie mais nonobstant toute autre loi fédérale, ont droit à l’accès aux documents relevant d’une institution fédérale et peuvent se les faire communiquer sur demande:   [...]  These practices include that BGIS “ensure its subcontracting processes are open, transparent and fair”, and that there is proper documentation including as to the selection criteria for subcontractors.   [...]  [104] Good faith in contractual dealings is an organizing principle in the law of contracts: Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, [2014] 3 SCR 494, at paras 63-66, 69-71; Wastech, at paras 58, 62-64, 128.

Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act (CA) (Re) - 2020 FC 757 - 2020-07-27

This finding formed part of the basis upon which the Court found that a body of Canadian jurisprudence dealing with information in foreign jurisdictions was distinguishable, because that jurisprudence did not involve the collection of information in violation of foreign law, international practice or the comity of nations.   [...]  21 (1) Le directeur ou un employé désigné à cette fin par le ministre peut, après avoir obtenu l’approbation du ministre, demander à un juge de décerner un mandat en conformité avec le présent article s’il a des motifs raison- nables de croire que le mandat est nécessaire pour per- mettre au Service de faire enquête, au   [...]   Further, [the proposed collection method, in violating foreign domestic and/or international law |and/or the international law principle of non-intervention]| cannot be characterized as according with the principle of international comity and being consistent with objectives of order and fairness.

Canadian Union Of Public Employees v. Canadian Human Rights Commssion - 2001 FCT 840 - 2001-07-27

[82] The Tribunal sought to clarify further the applicants' positions as to whether it was necessary to establish and deal with the concept of occupational segregation before addressing the issue of "establishment".   [...]  [88] While this provision confers on a Tribunal a broad discretion regarding the form of and the manner in which it receives evidence and releases it from the constraints of the general rules of evidence, the provision does not relieve the Tribunal of its obligations with respect to the principles of procedural fairness.   [...]  They argue that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider the application of the Canadian Bill of Rights to its enabling statute, and that the binding nature of the E.W.G.,1986 does not contravene the respondents' right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, as guaranteed by

Kwan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2001 FCT 971 - 2001-08-30

The amendments extend the eligibility of an adopted child for purposes of immigration to children under nineteen years of age, thus bringing the adoption provisions in line with the other immigration provisions dealing with sponsorship of children and dependency.   [...]  This sampling was thought to be fairly representative of the situation in the Region.   [...]  [43] Parliament considered retaining the status quo to prevent abuse, but concluded that an approach which balanced considerations of equality, fairness, the welfare of the child, and some abuse of immigration requirements, was needed.

Reducto v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2020 FC 511 - 2020-04-14

Rather, those interests must be “‘well identified and defined’ and examined ‘with a great deal of attention’ in light of all the evidence” (Kanthasamy at para 39, quoting Legault at paras 12 and 31 and referencing Kolosovs v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 165 at paras 9-12).   [...]  Exceptions can be made when a fair-minded person would consider it just and equitable to do so.

Rouleau v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FC 534 - 2017-05-31

The Court should refrain from dealing with an issue that should have properly been put to the tribunal whose function is to review leave application and whose expertise is recognized by Parliament (see Alberta Teachers’ Association, paras 24 to 27).   [...]  If it is found that the expert is unable or unwilling to carry out his duty to the court to provide fair, non-partisan and objective assistance, the trial judge may rule the testimony inadmissible.

Leuthold v. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - 2012 FC 1257 - 2012-10-29

f) any other order that this Honourable Court could consider fair and reasonable.   [...]  [34] Dealing next with her refusal of the Defendants’ offer, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants did not provide her with sufficient and reliable information concerning the Defendants’ advertising and subscription revenues as well as the number and scope of the infringements.

Entral Group International Inc. v. MCUE Enterprises Corp. (Di Da Di Karaoke Company) - 2010 FC 606 - 2010-06-03

d) s’il s’agit d’une oeuvre littéraire, dramatique ou musicale, d’en faire un enregistrement sonore, film cinématographique ou autre support, à l’aide desquels l’oeuvre peut être reproduite, représentée ou exécutée mécaniquement;   [...]  iv.As well as the Works that have been identified and used as an efficient way to bring this action and deal with the problem caused by the Defendants’ infringing conduct, there is also evidence of much more widespread infringement by the Defendants and abuse of the Plaintiffs’ rights in hundreds of other works;

Thomas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 838 - 2007-08-13

Where the issue raised is one of procedural fairness, such as the adequacy of reasons, the standard of review is correctness, and the pragmatic and functional approach need not be applied: Adu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 565 at para. 9; Canadian Union of Public Employees (C.U.P.E.) v.   [...]  As noted by the Court in Kasturiarachchi at paragraph 17, “[a]lthough the court was dealing with crimes against humanity in the context of admissibility, the discussion, in my view, is equally applicable to the issue of exclusion.”

Scott Paper Ltd. v. Canada - 2005 FC 1354 - 2005-10-03

in the present case would result in an impermissible double-standard, amounting to a breach of the Defendant's obligation to treat similarly situated taxpayers in a similar manner, as discussed in Mitchell et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 296 N.R. 259 (F.C.A.) and the CCRA's "Fairness Pledge" and Policy.   [...]  When dealing with ... piecemeal legislation such as the Excise Tax Act, ... which, unlike, for example, the Income Tax Act, has no coherent structure and contains no basic rules to start with and which is amended on a routine basis to accommodate or redress specific situations in a constantly evolving commercial reality,

Pashulya v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2004 FC 1275 - 2004-09-17

[38] Although the Applicant argues strenuously that the Officer erred in not considering his H & C application under the former IP-5 guidelines (because these guidelines were in effect when he submitted his application), this Court's recent Osadolor decision has made it clear that it is fair and correct for Immigration   [...]  The Decision necessarily deals with the different matters referred to in the guidelines as applied to the specific facts on the application.

Ominayak v. Returning Officer for the Lubicon Lake Indian Nation Election - 2003 FCT 596 - 2003-05-14

This right to a hearing reflects that, within an autonomous process for electing band governments, minimum standards of natural justice or procedural fairness must still be met.   [...]  [46] Dealing with each of those items, the evidence failed to establish any close personal friendship between the Chief Electoral Officer and any of the Chief, councillors, membership clerk or band consultant.