7,645 result(s)
-
926.
Asghar v. Rogers Communications Inc. - 2020 FC 951 - 2020-10-02
Federal Court Decisions[8] In a letter dated November 9, 2017, the Commission informed the parties it would prepare a section 40/41 report (Report) to decide whether it would deal with the complaint, or reject it for frivolousness. [...] B. Did the Decision breach Mr. Asghar’s right to procedural fairness? [...] This is important to understand that you are not dealing with a Canadian chump applying to Rogers Communications Inc. for menial jobs and hourly wages.”
-
927.
Trivedi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2014 FC 766 - 2014-07-31
Federal Court DecisionsProcedural Fairness [11] The Applicant says the CAIPS notes show that an officer denoted as SSH sent the Applicant a letter to the wrong address. [...] As Justice Mandamin stated in Zare v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 1024 at para 40, "the respondent has an obligation to deal with the Applicant fairly which goes beyond simply pressing the email send button." [...] [46] This matters because the principle of procedural fairness at issue is the duty to provide notice: see Yang, above, at para 9.
-
928.
XY v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2021 FC 831 - 2021-08-10
Federal Court Decisions(1) Level of Procedural Fairness [107] The duty of procedural fairness has already been considered above. [...] [117] There is a seriousness with which Parliament has chosen to deal with those persons subject to allegations of organized criminality. [...] If a question arises on the facts of a case before an applications judge, it is the judge's duty to deal with it.
-
929.
Installations sportives Defargo inc. v. Fieldturf Inc. - 2005 FC 1699 - 2005-12-15
Federal Court DecisionsOne must look at what is reasonable and fair under the circumstances: Smith, Kline & French Ltd. v. A.-G. Can., per Addy J. at p. 109. [...] [4] On the basis of these principles, we will now deal with the remaining requests and questions for each motion, beginning with Defargo’s motion. [...] Therefore, the present Reasons for Order and the Order will not deal with what is specified in this agreement (the Agreement).
-
930.
Lalonde v. Canada (Revenue Agency) - 2010 FC 531 - 2010-05-13
Federal Court Decisions32 The applicant’s fairness request was sent to the Shawinigan-Sud Tax Centre and was received on July 13, 2001. [...] In any area of the law we turn our attention to, we find ourselves dealing with the reasonable, reasonableness or rationality. [...] 8. 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
-
931.
Lewis v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2021 FC 1385 - 2021-12-09
Federal Court DecisionsThe Applicant also raised concerns about procedural fairness, but these were not accepted. [...] [92] This is sufficient to deal with the Applicant’s challenge to the CAA decision. [...] [136] Dealing with the Respondent’s submission, however, I also find that the Respondent has standing to challenge the CAA’s finding that the one-year time limit had expired.
-
932.
Wayzhushk Onigum Nation v. Kakeway - 2001 FCT 819 - 2001-07-20
Federal Court DecisionsShe contends that her job consisted mainly of dealing with the band's creditors, and that she never made management decisions, nor decisions regarding employment contracts. [...] There was no outward manifestation that Linda Copenace did not have the authority to deal on behalf of the band. [...] It seems to me that this is the underlying question which the courts have sought to answer in all the cases dealing with natural justice and with fairness.
-
933.
Derksen v. Canada (Correctional Service) - 2013 FC 1120 - 2013-11-04
Federal Court Decisions2. Was the Applicant afforded procedural fairness? 3. Should the decision to dismiss be set aside and sent back for a new decision? [...] In reviewing a decision of the Commission to refuse to deal with a complaint, the Court cannot go beyond the Commission's role and explore the merits of the complaint. [...] PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS [12] I find that the Applicant was provided procedural fairness.
-
934.
Hussain v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2004 FC 430 - 2004-03-22
Federal Court DecisionsAccordingly, your clients have a right to be heard by the Panel at a hearing reconvened to deal with this new information. [...] a possibility, it does not change the fact, in view of the short time given to reply, which was, incidentally, totally unjustified, that Ms. Valois, who was at home with a newborn, was not in a position to make an enlightened decision about how to deal with the file and to present the applicants' position fully and fairly. [...] [14] This breach of procedural fairness in itself warrants the intervention of the Court.
-
935.
Bell Canada v. Hussey - 2020 FC 795 - 2020-07-28
Federal Court DecisionsShe also argues that the manner in which the Adjudicator approached the bifurcated proceeding resulted in a breach of procedural fairness. [...] [48] On the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that there was a breach of procedural fairness in how the Adjudicator proceeded on April 23, 2019. [...] Further, the values underlying the duty of fairness “relate to the principle that the individual or individuals affected should have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly, and have decisions affecting their rights, interests, or privileges made using a fair, impartial, and open process, appropriate to
-
936.
Tait v. Johnson - 2014 FC 1102 - 2014-11-20
Federal Court Decisions[22] The New Appeal Board met later on July 23, 2014, and decided to accept the BCR submitted by Council and set a hearing to deal with the matter on July 28, 2014. [...] B. Was the New Appeal Board biased or did they breach the duty of fairness? [...] B. Was the New Appeal Board biased or did they breach the duty of fairness?
-
937.
Friends of Point Pleasant Park v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2000-12-06
Federal Court DecisionsProcedural fairness in the process leading to the Notice to Dispose [33] The applicants urge that the process leading to the issuance of the Notice to Dispose did not meet an appropriate standard of procedural fairness. [...] In dealing with that submission, Gibson J. said: [36] ...I find that the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice provide only a very low threshold in terms of a duty to consult stakeholders such as the applicants in arriving at a decision or decisions such as that or those here under review that are, in their [...] In my opinion, the process did not violate principles of procedural fairness in the circumstances of this case.
-
938.
Jiminez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2010 FC 1078 - 2010-11-10
Federal Court DecisionsThe 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. [...] It is certain, with Baker, that the interests of the children are one factor that an immigration officer must examine with a great deal of attention.
-
939.
Bartakovic v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2010 FC 372 - 2010-04-08
Federal Court DecisionsThe concern was that the Office was created and operated in such a way that a fair minded person, looking at the matter objectively, would be concerned that Ms. Bartakovic might not get a fair hearing. [...] Thereafter, a great deal of evidence was led, and the hearing was reopened to admit additional evidence which had been obtained under the Access to Information Act. [...] [22] The parties seem to have lost sight of the fact that the issue is whether a fair-minded person, having thought the matter through, would be concerned that the Appeals Office was unable to give Ms. Bartakovic a fair hearing de novo.
-
940.
Khadr v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2004 FC 1719 - 2004-12-09
Federal Court Decisions[5] By the letter from respondent's counsel on July 2 the applicant was advised that the Minister, on the ground that his previous decision was made without proper regard for the principle of fairness, "will consent to an Order setting aside" his decision. [...] to deal with the notice of application for judicial review filed May 13, 2004, the applicant made clear that amendment of the motion would be sought, rather than accepting the proposal that he re-apply for a passport if the decision of the Minister, conceded to have been made contrary to principles of fairness, were [...] is now moot, but that there is not a basis on which the Court should permit the matter to be decided, for that would unnecessarily involve further judicial proceedings, and it would deal prematurely with an issue which might not arise if the matter were remitted to the Minister for redetermination in a fair process.
-
941.
Kutuadu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2001-01-12
Federal Court DecisionsBreach of fairness: [ · ] The fairness letter did not point out that "excessive demand on health services" was the main issue; [...] [ · ] Failed to deal with the medical evidence in a fair manner. RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS [...] [28] Because of my disposition above, it is not necessary that I deal with the other
-
942.
Spike marks inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2008 FC 203 - 2008-02-18
Federal Court DecisionsSpecifically, the respondent noted that while the Excise Act, 2001 deals with the formula for calculating duties on imported tobacco, it primarily deals with the scheme used to control domestic tobacco, (ie. a licensing program). [...] [54] Because of my finding on this issue, I will not deal with the remaining issues. [...] a.1) de procéder aux examens visés à l’article 19.02 et faire rapport sur ceux-ci;
-
943.
Millbrook First Nation v. Tabor - 2016 FC 894 - 2016-08-03
Federal Court DecisionsIn my view though, the overarching issues are whether each decision was rendered in a procedurally fair manner and in accord with the standard of reasonableness. [...] 8 Before dealing with the merit of the appeal, I cannot help but observe, although the parties did not raise any objection in that respect, that the procedure followed by the Trial Judge is, to say the least, unusual. [...] 218 There have been a number of decisions dealing with retaliation/reprisal/provision under provincial Human Rights Codes.
-
944.
Biles v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FC 1159 - 2017-12-15
Federal Court Decisions[16] The Applicant did not judicially challenge the Commissioner’s decision not to deal with the reprisal allegations respecting Ms. Biguzs. [...] [47] Where he decides to deal with the compliant, the Commissioner may designate a person to investigate it (subsection 19.7(1) of the Act). [...] [64] The Commissioner must decide whether or not to deal with a reprisal complaint within 15 days after receiving it.
-
945.
Thanabalasingham v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2007 FC 599 - 2007-06-05
Federal Court Decisions[31] Finally, the issue of sufficiency of reasons is one of procedural fairness for which there is no need to proceed to a pragmatic and functional analysis. [...] As early as 1992, the Federal Court of Appeal when dealing with police evidence about Asian gang activities said: [...] The applicant has failed to persuade the Court that there was a breach of the IAD’s duty of fairness.
-
946.
Parmar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 133 - 2012-02-02
Federal Court Decisions[20] Procedural fairness was not raised either before the reviewing judge or the Court of Appeal and it can be easily disposed of here. [...] [22] It is true that the breach of a duty of procedural fairness is an error in law. [...] [39] Thus, the Court finds that there was no breach of procedural fairness in this case.
-
947.
Quastel v. Canada (Revenue Agency) - 2011 FC 143 - 2011-02-09
Federal Court DecisionsAs the matters spawn from the same general factual matrix, the Court will deal with both applications within the present Reasons for Judgment and Judgment. [...] To calibrate this discretion and to ensure fairness in the application of the Fairness Provisions, guidelines were adopted by CRA. These guidelines are at the heart of the present matter, as they were relied upon by CRA in refusing the Applicants’ request for relief under the Fairness Provisions. [...] Not that this is binding, but it also does confer reasonability to the decision, as like situations should be treated similarly as per the inherent “fairness” of the fairness provisions.
-
948.
Sandy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2004 FC 1468 - 2004-10-21
Federal Court DecisionsThe right to a fair hearing takes precedence over the need for a quick and speedy hearing." [...] [49] I will deal first with Issue 1. [50] Issue 1 Did the Board breach its duty of procedural fairness in denying the applicant's request for an adjournment of the October 2nd hearing or in the conduct of the hearing? [...] [55] I need not deal with the other issues raised by the applicant. [56] The application for judicial review is therefore allowed and the matter is remitted to a different panel of the Board for redetermination.
-
949.
Wyse v. Canada (National Revenue) - 2007 FC 535 - 2007-05-18
Federal Court Decisions[3] They seek judicial reviews of a September 15, 2005, decision of a delegate of the Minister of National Revenue (the “delegate”), denying their third level fairness applications for reassessment under section 152 (4.2) of the Income Tax Act (ITA), (the fairness provision). [...] An examination of the decisions bearing on these sections confirms that Indians who acquire and deal in property outside lands reserved for their use, deal with it on the same basis as all other Canadians.” [Emphasis mine] [...] However, this approach has the advantage that it preserves the ability to deal appropriately with future cases which present considerations not previously apparent.
-
950.
Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Lubrizol Corp. - 1999-01-20
Federal Court DecisionsThe availability of Mr. Nelligan and his proposal to deal with any evidence from or about Lang Michener lawyers, if such evidence is to be led: [...] (a) provides the court with independent and objective counsel to lead and deal with any such evidence; [...] It allows the courts, in any given case, to deal with the facts as they present themselves.