7,644 result(s)
-
826.
Tesfaye v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 1143 - 2007-11-05
Federal Court DecisionsWhen issues of procedural fairness are raised, the Court must determine whether the requirements of procedural fairness are met based on a standard of correctness. [...] [11] In dealing with the application, the Appeal Division stated, in its decision that: [...] [14] However, the question is whether, on the facts of this case, the Appeal Division’s decision to proceed in writing was fair to the Applicant.
-
827.
Domantay v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 755 - 2008-06-18
Federal Court Decisions... il est interdit à quiconque n’est pas un représentant autorisé de représenter une personne dans toute affaire devant le ministre, l’agent ou la Commission, ou de faire office de conseil, contre rémunération. [...] The IRB will not deal with a non-member as counsel, but will continue processing the case and treat the person who is the subject of the proceeding as represented. [...] [19] Based on the foregoing, the Court shares the view that there is a duty incumbent upon the Board to verify that those individuals representing clients with whom it has dealings are authorized representatives pursuant to the Regulations, or that they are not receiving a fee for their services.
-
828.
Zhao v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1999-06-08
Federal Court Decisions[. . .] The principles of natural justice and procedural fairness apply to the visa officer's meeting with the applicant. [...] The visa officer must maintain a level of decorum conducive to an open and fair exchange, even in circumstances which must be sometimes difficult and trying. [...] [8] Consequently, it will not be necessary to deal with the other arguments raised by the applicant.
-
829.
Canada (Registrar of Indian Register) v. Sinclair - 2001 FCT 1418 - 2001-12-20
Federal Court Decisions[22] Sections 6 and 7 deal with persons who are entitled or not entitled to be registered. [...] [24] Section 18.3 of the Federal Court Act dealing with References reads: [...] [40] In any event, he argued, the facts of this case, in terms of procedural fairness, puts it well beyond the low threshold established by Justice Thurlow in Bay, supra, recognizing the Registrar had to be fair in the circumstances and had treated Mr. Sinclair fairly on the evidence before me.
-
830.
Tewelde v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 1103 - 2007-10-24
Federal Court Decisions[5] It is in respect of this last finding that the applicant argues the RPD erred, either by ignoring important documentary evidence that clearly contradicts its conclusions, or by failing to give adequate reasons, thereby breaching its duty of fairness. [...] [7] In respect of the alleged failure to give adequate reasons, the Court will normally intervene if there was a breach of procedural fairness. [...] The panel has no serious reasons to believe that the state of Israel deliberately targets civilians in its campaign to identify and deal with terrorists.
-
831.
Chudal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 1073 - 2005-08-08
Federal Court Decisions[4] On October 8, 2004 the Applicant's counsel submitted yet further documents dealing with conditions in Nepal. [...] "¼fairness requires disclosure of evidence that is novel and significant and where it is evidence that may effect the decision." [...] Both cases deal with decisions of the Refugee Board, not a PRRA Officer, and both indicate that such a decision is "final" once it is signed and transmitted to the Registrar.
-
832.
Air Transat A.T. Inc. v. Canada (Transport) - 2017 FC 910 - 2017-10-13
Federal Court DecisionsGiven that one of the grounds in my judgment deals with the issue of the delays in managing this case, I wanted to fully note the steps taken by the various participants. [...] (2) a lack of procedural fairness? (3) a lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Commissioner? [...] (46) Air Transat and TC agree that the Report deals with technical and commercial information, and that it was always treated by Air Transat as being confidential in nature.
-
833.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Syndicat des Communications de Radio-Canada - 2005 FC 466 - 2005-04-12
Federal Court Decisions41. (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 [...] [48] As the question here is one of natural justice and procedural fairness, no standard of review is applicable. [...] [49] As it was decided in connection with the preceding question that the Commission made an error requiring the Court's intervention and that accordingly the case will be referred, there is no need to deal with this question at length.
-
834.
Alabi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1163 - 2018-11-16
Federal Court Decisions[15] The Officer weighed the fact that the Applicant ran a business in Canada and had submitted letters of commendation against his misrepresentations and lack of integrity in his dealings with the Canadian government. [...] The Applicant had no prior notice of the concern and emphasizes that the Decision marks the first time in his 20 years of dealing with CIC that it had been identified to him. [...] [26] Nonetheless, even at the low end of the procedural fairness spectrum, an applicant must be treated fairly.
-
835.
Obasuyi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 508 - 2022-04-11
Federal Court DecisionsWere the applicants denied a fair hearing because of the incompetence of the counsel who represented them before the RPD and the RAD? [...] Questions of procedural fairness require an approach resembling the correctness standard of review that asks “whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances” (Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (AG), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54 [Canadian Pacific]). [...] The Applicants also submit that the RAD failed to undertake a state protection analysis, thereby ignoring the evidence that the police refused to deal with their complaint.
-
836.
Tareen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 1260 - 2015-11-06
Federal Court DecisionsIssues of procedural fairness are reviewed on a standard of correctness. [...] They submit the duty of fairness required the Officer to confront the applicants with this e-mail and provide them with a fair opportunity to respond to the specific concerns that this e-mail raised. [...] Paragraph 35(1)(b) does not deal with behaviour. It does not require an investigation of intent.
-
837.
Keymanesh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 641 - 2006-05-25
Federal Court Decisions[11] The issue raised on this application for judicial review is one of procedural fairness involving the duty to give notice. [...] The requirement that notice be afforded to the person affected by such a decision is fundamental to the achievement of fairness: it is the essential foundation of virtually all of the other procedural fairness protections. [...] This is particularly important here given the Department’s history of dealings with the Applicant over the years which indicated that he had been quite consistent in keeping it apprised of his whereabouts and had not infrequently initiated contact.
-
838.
Ladouceur v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2010 FC 1148 - 2010-11-16
Federal Court Decisionsi. On 9 July 2009 in dealing again with the matter the Board maintained its decision of 9 January 2009. [...] It deals with “Loss of Function- Ankle” and provides, for instance at nine percent: [...] In total fairness with the other Appellants with the same type of disability, the Board considered in order to have fair assessments across Canada, the same Table must be used.
-
839.
Eli Lilly Canada inc. v. Apotex Inc. - 2010 FC 952 - 2010-09-24
Federal Court DecisionsAnd where a final decision has been made on a fair contest between the parties, that should stand as the final answer between them. [...] [31] With respect to fairness, the statements of the Federal Court of Appeal in Syntex, although made in respect of the 1993 version of section 8, are quite applicable here. [...] In balancing the issue of fairness, I do not believe that the balance is in favour of Apotex here.
-
840.
Nadarasa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2009 FC 1112 - 2009-10-29
Federal Court Decisions[16] But first, I shall deal with the motion brought by the respondent pursuant to s. 87 of the IRPA. [...] The question is whether the applicant had the opportunity of dealing with the evidence. [...] This is what the long-established authorities indicate the rules of procedural fairness require.
-
841.
Ramay v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 954 - 2007-09-24
Federal Court Decisions[20] For these reasons, I am of the view that, in this instance, there has not been a breach of procedural fairness. [...] The Board admitted that in the past the police were often ineffective in dealing with Sunni/Shia sectarian violence. [...] Nevertheless, it found there have been serious and dramatic changes when dealing with sectarian violence.
-
842.
Chowdhury v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2003 FCT 744 - 2003-06-13
Federal Court Decisions[27] The findings of the Board dealing with the applicant's role and participation in the AL and his knowledge of the AL in human rights violations are findings of fact. [...] [42] On judicial review, Lutfy A.C.J. held that the applicant's right to procedural fairness had been breached. [...] I find that this is insufficient to ensure procedural fairness at the hearing.
-
843.
Siddique v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2022 FC 964 - 2022-06-28
Federal Court DecisionsBased on this, the RAD accepted the Applicants’ request to file new evidence regarding the mafia organization, as well as new country condition information dealing with the rise of Hindu nationalism in India, India-Pakistan relations, and visa information regarding the Co-Applicant. [...] It is not necessary to deal with this at length, because the Applicants did not seek to rely on these portions of the evidence, and so they were given no weight in my consideration of the matter. [...] [28] The failure to hold an oral hearing did not deny the Applicants a fair procedure.
-
844.
Sharma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2020 FC 381 - 2020-03-13
Federal Court DecisionsHe also contends that the Officer breached the rules of procedural fairness by approaching his file with bias and a closed mind. [...] Furthermore, in all respects, the Officer met the procedural fairness requirements in dealing with Mr. Sharma’s application and did not exhibit any reprehensible form of bias. [...] Furthermore, in all respects, the Officer met all procedural fairness requirements in dealing with Mr. Sharma’s application and did not exhibit any reprehensible form of bias.
-
845.
Air Canada v. AIS Infonetics Inc. - 2009 FC 668 - 2009-06-26
Federal Court DecisionsThe thrust of his affidavit deals with reservations and ticket purchase. [...] • 1) At paragraph 6, Mr. Huegel stated: “The activities complained of in the crossclaim of AIS are “fairly recent”... [...] In such cases, the applicant must show a fair prima facie case (see Aetna at paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 26, 28 and 30).
-
846.
Sheikh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2020 FC 199 - 2020-02-05
Federal Court Decisionsa) la demande de parrainage est faite par une personne qui, ayant indiqué — durant la période durant laquelle elle pouvait le faire — son intérêt à faire une demande de parrainage par les moyens mis à disposition par le Ministère à cette fin, a été invitée à faire sa demande après avoir été sélectionnée au hasard par le [...] b) la demande de parrainage a été reçue par le Ministère dans les 90 jours suivant le jour où le Ministère lui a envoyé une invitation à faire une demande de parrainage; [...] The Minister is not responsible for that vast number and requires the discretionary flexibility to devise ways of dealing with it.
-
847.
Naeem v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 123 - 2007-02-07
Federal Court Decisions[2] These reasons deal with all three applications and a copy shall be placed on each file. [...] Procedural fairness requires that the officer must render a decision in a timely manner. [...] Section 13 of ENF 2/OP 18 deals with ministerial relief. In section 13.6 the concept of national interest is explained as follows:
-
848.
Banda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2010 FC 678 - 2010-06-22
Federal Court Decisions[19] The next issue is to determine if Ms. Landin Banda was denied a fair hearing. [...] The issue is whether she was denied a fair hearing, and not whether Mr. Arenas Pareja ought to have been deported while he was under a summons. [...] [24] The panel has a great deal of latitude, greater than that of this Court, in the manner in which it receives evidence.
-
849.
Dissanayakage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2004 FC 582 - 2004-04-20
Federal Court DecisionsIt was contrary to s. 172, and a breach of procedural fairness, Mr. Dissanayakage says, for the Minister's delegate to consider the PRRA officer's supplementary opinion. [...] [17] I am not persuaded that there has been a breach of procedural fairness here. [...] [1] See Sidhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 39 for a discussion of the jurisprudence dealing with this question.
-
850.
Blake v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2002 FCT 187 - 2002-02-25
Federal Court DecisionsThe applicant contends that such a finding may ultimately be permissible but not without a fair and appropriate process. [...] That is not the end of the matter, however, since this judicial review deals with a second H & C application which is based on his second and current wife's sponsorship of him as a member of the family class. [...] [22] Because of my disposition of the second issue, it is not necessary for me to deal with Issue 3.