7,645 result(s)
-
76.
Brown v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 458 - 2024-03-25
Federal Court DecisionsTP was dealing with the injuries for a long time to come. I had a phone conversation with TP on June 5, 2023 and TP stated that they had still not returned to the workforce and the injury is a factor in that. [...] Procedural fairness requirements depend on context. A reviewing court is required to consider whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances: Canadian Pacific Railway at para 54. [...] [14] From a procedural fairness perspective, Mr. Brown was aware of the case he had to meet and he was given a full and fair chance to respond: Canadian Pacific Railway at para 56.
-
77.
McDowell v. A Drip of Honey - 2024 FC 453 - 2024-03-25
Federal Court DecisionsI will deal with each in turn; however, I note from the outset that the Plaintiff’s submissions almost entirely relate to passing off. [...] c) faire passer d’autres produits ou services pour ceux qui sont commandés ou demandés;
-
78.
Canada (National Revenue) v. Chad - 2024 FC 460 - 2024-03-22
Federal Court DecisionsThe documents subject to the Requirements are foreign-based documents because (1) they are not within the Respondent’s power, possession or control; and (2) the documents would be located outside of Canada and would likely be within the possession or control of other entities with whom the Respondent deals at arm’s length. [...] For example, the Court refused to exercise the power where the record provides “sufficient evidence surrounding the circumstances under which the Report was requested and generated, and sufficient evidence as to the nature of the information in the Report, that the Court can fairly decide the issues raised in this
-
79.
LF v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation - 2024 FC 452 - 2024-03-22
Federal Court DecisionsA. The Adjudicator did not breach the rules of procedural fairness 12 [...] There is no allegation of a breach of procedural fairness in relation to File T-894-18. [...] CMHC believed that it was dealing with an employee with a normal level of psychological resiliency.
-
80.
Welcome v. Canada - 2024 FC 443 - 2024-03-19
Federal Court DecisionsAggravated damages of $300,000 for the Plaintiff’s vexatious experience resulting in the Plaintiff’s moral indignation due to a loss of faith in the federal civil service’s ability, or willingness, to conduct itself in good faith and fair dealing when managing a hiring competition; [...] Any other relief that this Court may consider fair and equitable. II. Issues [...] a) révoquer la nomination ou ne pas faire la nomination, selon le cas;
-
81.
Guzman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 433 - 2024-03-18
Federal Court DecisionsThis is because, among other things, “courts should respect the legislative choice of the tribunal as the first instance decision maker by giving the tribunal the opportunity to deal with the issue first and to make its views known” (Alberta Teachers’ Association, at para 24). [...] [33] Reasonableness review “is an approach meant to ensure that courts intervene in administrative matters only where it is truly necessary to do so in order to safeguard the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative process. [...] The updated Response to Information Request (RIR) (Item 6.2) has a section dealing specifically with Mexico City that addresses many salient issues.
-
82.
Cely Tiria v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 422 - 2024-03-14
Federal Court DecisionsThe ELN asked the Principal Applicant why he was avoiding them when he knew he had a “service they wanted of [him].” They warned him that if he did so again, they would look for him starting with his children then his wife before “dealing with [him].” The ELN members said they were well aware of where his family was. [...] [24] A decision may be unreasonable if the decision maker misapprehended the evidence before it (Vavilov at paras 125–126; Mason v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 SCC 21 at para 73), however, I do not find the Applicants’ criticisms are supportable on a fair reading of the Decision and the evidence before the
-
83.
Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 416 - 2024-03-12
Federal Court DecisionsWhile the Applicant raised bias and procedural fairness issues in her written submissions, the Applicant’s counsel withdrew those arguments at the hearing of the judicial review application and confirmed that she was only challenging the reasonableness of the ID Member’s application of the innocent mistake exception. [...] I am dealing with evidence. Do you have evidence of that because Counsel's role is not to give evidence.
-
84.
Johnson v. Canadian Tennis Association - 2024 FC 404 - 2024-03-08
Federal Court DecisionsHowever, as other judicial officers have noted, the Plaintiff here has “already been accorded a great deal of latitude but he persists in deliberately flouting Orders and Directions of the Court” Order of Case Management Judge Catherine A. Coughlan dated November 8, 2023 at para 21. [...] Nor is it clear that costs will be awarded based on the high end of Column V. I agree with the Moving Defendants that the amount of security must fairly balance the “need for the security to provide meaningful indemnity and not be illusory, while also not being so oppressive so as to prevent a plaintiff from bringing a
-
85.
Medina Rodriguez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 401 - 2024-03-08
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), without “reweighing and reassessing the evidence” before it (Vavilov at para 125). [...] Hernandez was a matter dealing with an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds. [...] These Guidelines are there to be followed, and submitting a certified question at the last minute is not helpful to the Court nor fair for the opposing party.
-
86.
Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Mamut - 2024 FC 370 - 2024-03-06
Federal Court DecisionsIn short, while the exclusion of a party always raises serious procedural fairness concerns, I was satisfied that, in the circumstances of this case, the absence of an amicus would not leave either the respondents or the Court at a disadvantage. [...] [26] Justice Rothstein observed in Khan (at para 26) that a variety of factors have been considered by the Federal Court in determining whether an apparent case for disclosure has been established; however, he found the most helpful guidance in the then recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence dealing with disclosure [...] As will become apparent to them once they see the dates of the visa officer’s emails, the officer’s communications with the CBSA post-date the procedural fairness letters sent to the respondents in February 2020.
-
87.
Saxena v. Canada - 2024 FC 324 - 2024-03-04
Federal Court Decisionsthe Statement of Claim is, in essence, that the process by which Canada deals with requests to waive the rule of speciality in extradition proceedings denies the person who has been extradited procedural fairness because they cannot make submissions before the decision is taken nor can they challenge it after it is taken. [...] [50] This claim seeks a ruling on a claim that the process Canada follows in dealing with a request for waiver of speciality in extradition cases violates section 7 of the Charter. [...] The Defendant did not seek summary judgment on the merits of the claim that the process for dealing with requests for the waiver of specialty in the context of extradition violates section 7 of the Charter.
-
88.
Bakr v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 353 - 2024-03-01
Federal Court Decisions[10] In his memorandum, the Applicant had challenged both the reasonableness of the RAD decision and whether it was reached in a procedurally fair manner. [...] However, in the hearing, the Applicant dropped the argument on procedural fairness. [...] I will therefore only deal with these issues. [17] The Applicant has argued that the RAD reviewed the RPD decision on the correctness standard, which was an error.
-
89.
Halton (Regional Municipality) v. Canada (Environment) - 2024 FC 348 - 2024-03-01
Federal Court Decisions[67] These Reasons deal with the expert Review Panel’s conclusions the Project will likely cause significant direct adverse environmental effects on 1) air quality and 2) human health, and will likely cause significant adverse cumulative environmental effect on both 3) air quality and 4) human health. [...] [68] These Reasons do not deal with the Review Panel’s findings that the Project will cause significant adverse cumulative effects on wildlife, wildlife habitat, and agricultural land because they are not in issue. [...] Thus, only arguments that can possibly get past a high level of deference can qualify as “fairly arguable”.
-
90.
Pharmascience Inc. v. Janssen Inc. - 2024 FC 335 - 2024-02-29
Federal Court Decisions[32] A phrase that comes up with some frequency in the context of privilege and waiver is “fairness and consistency.” [...] However, waiver may also occur in the absence of an intention to waive, where fairness and consistency so require. [...] [99] Resources of courts are frequently, and fairly, described as scarce.
-
91.
Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v. Coors Brewing Company - 2024 FC 169 - 2024-02-28
Federal Court Decisions[62] In using the assignment date as the starting point, the Registrar (and the other hearing officers dealing with these other cases) were acting in a manner consistent with Scott Paper itself. [...] Even if the Registrar did not explicitly quote from the fourth element of the Scott Paper test, a fair reading of the decision confirms that she focused on the proper issue, which is whether there were special circumstances that excused the non-use of the Marks. [...] [91] In conclusion, the Registrar stated “I find that a fair review of the whole of the [Respondent’s] evidence is sufficient to show special circumstances excusing the absence of use of the Subject Trademarks as required by section 45(3) of the Act.”
-
92.
Bouab v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 315 - 2024-02-27
Federal Court DecisionsASHRAF BOUAB: Yeah, fair enough. MR. ZAP: So the moral of the story is if you’d waited an extra twenty minutes, I in all likelihood I may have found you not guilty sir. [...] He did not embellish in any fashion, and quite frankly, I prefer Mr. Bouab’s evidence over Officer Semple, but recognizing Officer Semple deals with hundreds of inmates every several months and had no immediate recollection.
-
93.
Naveed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 318 - 2024-02-27
Federal Court DecisionsIt is “an approach meant to ensure that courts intervene in administrative matters only where it is truly necessary to do so in order to safeguard the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative process. [...] [28] The RAD upheld the RPD’s finding that the Applicants failed to establish that the police are forcing their minor son still living in Pakistan to deal drugs on their behalf: [...] Similarly, the grandmother’s affidavit states that the drug-addicted grandson obtains drugs through the police but does not speak to him dealing drugs for them.
-
94.
Brass v. Key First Nation - 2024 FC 304 - 2024-02-26
Federal Court Decisions[27] Thus, it is fair to say that each case will involve a different weighing depending on the individual circumstances before the decision maker (Solvay Pharma Inc. v. Apotex Inc., [2007] F.C.J. No.1190 (QL) at para. 12, 2007 FC 913). [...] And someone needed to organize a fairly chaotic scene, then, at the SA [social assistance] desk? [...] So, again, the experience at Champs, retail experience of dealing with somebody not necessarily scheduling an appointment, but coming to you in a moment, saying, “Hey, I need whatever that piece of clothing or product is” is something, again, that was a skill set that may have helped in that SA position?
-
95.
Montecristo Jewellers Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 309 - 2024-02-26
Federal Court DecisionsAs noted above, for a question of law or a breach of procedural fairness, no deference is owed. [...] (iii) establishing an agency that is responsible for ensuring compliance with Parts 1 and 1.1 and for dealing with reported and other information; [...] (a) respecting dealing in virtual currencies; a) régir le commerce de monnaie virtuelle;
-
96.
Omar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 299 - 2024-02-23
Federal Court DecisionsDid the Officer breach procedural fairness in not providing the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the Officer’s various concerns with the identity evidence? [...] [17] Issues of procedural fairness do not necessarily lend themselves to a standard of review analysis. [...] B. No breach of fairness [36] The Applicant notes that the initial H&C decision did not take issue with the Applicant’s identity and that, in dealing with the issue on redetermination, the Officer erred by not providing the Applicant with notice and an opportunity to respond.
-
97.
Alberta v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright) - 2024 FC 292 - 2024-02-22
Federal Court Decisions[27] This Court found that the interim tariff was enforceable against York University and that neither its fair dealing guidelines nor its actual practices constituted fair dealing. [...] The Plaintiffs were granted leave to appeal the fair dealing issue to the Supreme Court. [...] In particular, it introduced education as an allowable fair dealing purpose.
-
98.
Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 288 - 2024-02-22
Federal Court Decisions(1) Did the RAD violate the Applicants' right to procedural fairness? [...] C. Procedural Fairness [22] The duty to act fairly comprises two components: 1) the right to a fair and impartial hearing before an independent decision-maker and 2) the right to be heard (Fortier v Canada (AG), 2022 FC 374 at para 14 [Fortier]; Therrien (Re), 2001 SCC 35 at para 82 [Therrien]. [...] A. Did the RAD violate the Applicants' right to procedural fairness?
-
99.
Zaheer v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 263 - 2024-02-21
Federal Court Decisions[6] The Applicant argues that his right to procedural fairness was compromised because the PRRA Officer was unduly influenced by the reasons set out in an earlier decision by a U.S. Immigration Judge. [...] It is also significant that the PRRA Officer and the U.S. Immigration Judge were dealing with the same claims and it appears much of the same evidence, and so it is not surprising there is a resemblance on some of the reasoning. [...] [15] Therefore, there was no breach of procedural fairness or natural justice.
-
100.
Thibodeau v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority - 2024 FC 274 - 2024-02-20
Federal Court DecisionsI will deal with both applications at the same time because a number of issues are common to both. [...] However, these signs were not part of Mr. Thibodeau’s complaint to the Commissioner and, as such, I cannot deal with them. [...] [27] Subsections 23(1) and (2) of the OLA deal with the duty of federal institutions that provide services or make them available to the travelling public.