7,645 result(s)
-
1,226.
Kim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2002 FCT 40 - 2002-01-15
Federal Court DecisionsThe children are said to have never been on their own and not to be equipped to deal with this. [...] Therefore, the absence of an interview did not in this case constitute a breach of the duty of fairness. [...] In that circumstance it is not necessary for me to deal with the other issues raised by the applicants.
-
1,227.
Panqueva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2001 FCT 493 - 2001-05-16
Federal Court DecisionsYou went to a great deal of efforts trying to convince me that you were the person who had either operated, controlled or directed that business. [...] [16] With respect to the first concern, the visa officer noted in the refusal letter that "[y]ou went to a great deal of efforts trying to convince me that you were the person who had either operated, controlled or directed that business." [...] (ii) Did the visa officer deny Ms. Galvis Panqueva procedural fairness by failing to advise of and give her an opportunity to address the visa officer's concerns?
-
1,228.
Moffett Estate v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) - 2001 FCT 364 - 2001-04-19
Federal Court Decisions[1] The Estate of Edith V. Moffett and Gaye E. Moffett and Roslyn E. Butler, as Executrixes, (the "Applicants") seek judicial review of the decision made by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency Fairness Unit. [...] 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 [...] In my view, in dealing with legislation of this nature, the courts should, wherever possible, avoid a narrow, technical construction, and endeavour to make effective the legislative intent as applied to the administrative scheme involved.
-
1,229.
Caraan v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2013 FC 360 - 2013-04-10
Federal Court Decisions[37] The Respondent insists that the Applicant’s failure to deal with his outstanding criminal charge before the IAD’s ADR proceedings cannot be imputed on the Minister and that this was his responsibility. [...] Given the Court’s findings on the abuse of process and breach of procedural fairness claims, the IAD’s error is not fatal. [...] If persons are treated differently, it is not due to the interpretation of subsection 68(4) as limiting the jurisdiction of the IAD but rather, as in the case at bar, because of the Applicant’s failure to properly deal with his outstanding charges.
-
1,230.
Gunn v. Halifax Longshoremen’s Association, ILA Local 269 - 2020 FC 341 - 2020-03-06
Federal Court DecisionsIn this case, the Commission declined to deal with the matter because Mr. Gunn had earlier made the same allegations of discrimination against Local 269 to the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB), where the complaint was dismissed on the merits. [...] Laying at the heart of that comparison is a concern for procedural fairness, and not whether the earlier decision-maker got it right or had the requisite expertise: see Figliola, above, at paras 49-53. [...] [17] I am satisfied that the Commission’s decision not to deal with Mr. Gunn’s complaint was fairly reached and substantively reasonable.
-
1,231.
Morales v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 1220 - 2007-11-26
Federal Court DecisionsWhether a tribunal's decision was made in breach of the duty of procedural fairness, including the requirement of impartiality, is determined by a reviewing court on a standard of correctness. [...] [14] Second, the evidence was that the Board had not consulted the legal community specializing in immigration and refugee law before issuing lead cases that would guide members in dealing with the increasing number of applications from Hungarian Roma claimants. [...] [22] It was up to the applicant to show how the lead cases had interfered with his right to procedural fairness.
-
1,232.
Escalona Perez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 1379 - 2006-11-15
Federal Court Decisions• The parents could expect a fair process of prosecution in respect of the outstanding warrant for their arrest; and [...] [15] Finally, the Applicants point out that the RPD found that the implementation of the Organic Criminal Procedures Code (COPP) negated the fears of the parents that they would not receive a fair trial upon returning to Venezuela. [...] However, that was not the case; the same state of implementation of the goals of the COPP (and the weaknesses) identified in the 2004 DOS Report dealing were contained – almost word for word – in the 2002 DOS Report considered by the RPD.
-
1,233.
Horvat v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2003 FCT 262 - 2003-02-28
Federal Court Decisions[1] These reasons will deal with two related matters that were heard together. [...] There was no denial of procedural fairness in my view. Proof of Funds [...] [15] It is not necessary for me to deal with this issue in light of my decision on the reasons issue.
-
1,234.
Pidasheva v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1999-05-18
Federal Court DecisionsHowever, this decision deals only with docket IMM-637-98, which was heard following docket IMM-771-98. [...] Does the respondent have a duty to act fairly and consistently with the principles of fundamental justice when dealing with applications under the DROC regulatory provisions? [...] Does the respondent"s general duty of fairness toward refugee claimants continue when their case is the subject of an application for judicial review?
-
1,235.
Gordillo v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2019 FC 950 - 2019-07-18
Federal Court Decisions(f) there is a valid reason for not dealing with the subject-matter of the disclosure or the investigation. [...] [58] An issue of procedural fairness “requires no assessment of the appropriate standard of judicial review. [...] [59] The degree of procedural fairness to which disclosers under the Act are entitled at the stage of the Commissioner’s decision whether to investigate is at the lower end of the fairness spectrum.
-
1,236.
Kamara v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 13 - 2024-01-04
Federal Court DecisionsThe reviewing court must adopt an attitude of restraint and intervene “only where it is truly necessary to do so in order to safeguard the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative process” (Vavilov, at para 13). [...] In short, when the new information is not sufficiently different, novel and significant, there is no breach of the rules of procedural fairness if the RAD fails to give a claimant the opportunity to comment on it. [...] Tab 13, which deals with the issues of “Nationality, Ethnicity and Race” contains the same articles in both versions.
-
1,237.
Esgenoôpetitj (Burnt Church) First Nation v. Canada (Human Resources and Skills Development) - 2010 FC 1195 - 2010-11-29
Federal Court DecisionsSince such an application is meant to be dealt with summarily, it is ordinarily more proper to deal with any objection to the application in the context of the hearing on the merits, if only because a full grasp of the facts and of the context will often be necessary to deal with the objection. [...] This is not a case in which the additional information would have been helpful to the Court in determining the jurisdictional or procedural fairness issues raised. [...] When dealing with a judicial review, it is not a matter of requesting the disclosure of any document which could be relevant in the hopes of later establishing relevance.
-
1,238.
Peck v. Parks Canada - 2009 FC 686 - 2009-06-30
Federal Court DecisionsI find the generic job description fairly describes in generic terms your work and responsibilities. [...] While dealing with Treasury Board as employer, its principles apply with equal force to Parks Canada: [...] [37] While dealing with the authority of Treasury Board as employer, Babcock applies equally to Parks Canada as employer.
-
1,239.
Xu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1999-06-15
Federal Court Decisions[22] Subsection 6(1) of the Act deals with the general principles of admissibility of immigrants. [...] [24] Section 8 of the Act deals with admissions to Canada and with general presumptions including burden of proof. [...] [32] I am completely satisfied that, in this case, the I.O. discharged her duties in accordance to law and was fair in the manner she proceeded.
-
1,240.
Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Nu-Pharm Inc. - 1998-10-16
Federal Court Decisions[12] I find it a bit difficult to deal realistically with these preliminary issues raised by the applicants. [...] A six-volume Applicants" Record and four days of argument are fairly good evidence of that. [...] Dealing with the "076 patent, Richard J. (as he then was) found that its essential feature was the product itself.
-
1,241.
Nwankwo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2023 FC 786 - 2023-06-06
Federal Court DecisionsWhether the RAD breached the Applicants’ right to procedural fairness in its assessment of the supporting affidavits. [...] [11] For issues of procedural fairness, the reviewing Court’s role is to determine whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 at para 54; Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers v Canada (Immigration, Refugees and [...] The RAD drew negative credibility inferences from the PA and her mother’s explanations as to whether the lender tried to use legal action to recover the loan, why the lenders did not use the court system to deal with the default, and why the PA and her mother did not ask the authorities for help.
-
1,242.
Kim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 632 - 2008-05-21
Federal Court Decisions3. Did the officer breach procedural fairness in failing to provide the applicants with an opportunity to disabuse their concerns? [...] [5] In my view, it was an error in law for the immigration officer to have concluded that she was not required to deal with risk factors in her assessment of the humanitarian and compassionate application. [...] [30] I need not deal with the other issues raised by the applicants because of my finding on Issue 2.
-
1,243.
Hewitt v. Canada (Solicitor General) - 2005 FC 790 - 2005-06-01
Federal Court Decisions2. Did the failure to provide the applicant with the memorandum prepared by Officer Collette, dated October 24, 2003, constitute a breach of procedural fairness? [...] [18] The applicant further submitted that because of the seriousness of the report under subsection 44(1), a full and fair disclosure to allow rebuttal of perceived mischaracterizations, a failure to provide the information contained in the memorandum constitutes a breach of procedural fairness (see Andino v. Canada [...] [43] Because of my findings above, I will not deal with the other issue.
-
1,244.
Plattig v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2003 FC 1074 - 2003-09-17
Federal Court Decisions[17] The respondent submits that the Minister's delegate exercised his discretion in a fair and reasonable manner. [...] In the present case, the applicant failed to avail herself of the statutory processes to deal with the assessments for the taxation years at issue. [...] [42] Finally, the respondent also argues that subsection 152(4.2) of the Act was enacted to provide the Minister with some degree of flexibility and discretion in dealings with taxpayers who are unable to meet the statutory deadlines.
-
1,245.
Slau Limited v. Canada (National Revenue) - 2008 FC 1142 - 2008-10-08
Federal Court Decisions[7] The settlement and the Disposition for the 1988-1990 tax years did not deal with the issue of carry-back of non-capital losses from the 1991-1993 taxation years. [...] [37] The Disposition settled the tax liability for the 1988-1990 tax years, but did not deal with the issue of loss carry-back. [...] [41] The fairness decision under review dated July 6, 2006 (p.9, Applicant’s Record), states:
-
1,246.
Delos Santos v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2010 FC 614 - 2010-06-07
Federal Court Decisions[10] The Applicant argues that the Officer made an unreasonable decision and further, that an issue of procedural fairness arises from the fact that the same officer decided this H&C application and his application for Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA”). [...] The question of procedural fairness is reviewable on the standard of correctness. [...] [12] There is no inherent bias arising from the fact that one officer can deal with both a H&C application and a PRRA application.
-
1,247.
Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. Inc. - 2002 FCT 1424 - 2002-01-03
Federal Court DecisionsGenerally speaking, the burden rests on the defendant of showing that the particulars furnished by the reply do not at least give him some fair idea of the outline of the case made out against him so that he can properly plead thereto. [...] However, in my view, Apotex does not have to deal with this defence at the present time since Merck has not filed a statement of defence. [...] Merck does have a fair outline of Apotex's case. Furthermore, much of the legislative history of this matter has been set out in Merck & Co. v. Minister of Health (1998), 79 C.P.R. (3d) 57 (F.C.T.D.).
-
1,248.
Tigney Technology Inc. v. Canada - 1999-08-03
Federal Court Decisions[2] The application of Tigney Technology Incorporated ("Tigney") involves an interesting and fairly narrow point as to whether there may be a reassessment under the Excise Act . [...] In response to that motion, Tigney, instead of filing a motion record as required by Rule 365, filed a document called an application record, which while dealing with the claim as a whole, also expressly touches upon the allegation of time bar and here I refer to pages 40 through 42 of the record, being a portion of the [...] In the present instance, the application deals with an interesting and narrow point which ought to be and can be decided fairly easily.
-
1,249.
Berhad v. Canada - 2004 FC 501 - 2004-04-05
Federal Court DecisionsSection IV below deals with the finding of liability, and Section V deals with damages. [...] I think it is fair to say that the answer to "when" is, "it depends". [...] I expected at the time that the subject matter experts would deal with it.
-
1,250.
Gerrard v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2010 FC 1152 - 2010-11-17
Federal Court DecisionsC. Did the Commission breach procedural fairness during its investigation process? [...] (3) Did the Commission Breach Procedural Fairness During its Investigation Process? [...] Moreover, an investigator is not required to deal exhaustively with every allegation made by a complainant.