7,645 result(s)
-
101.
Harpur Farms, LLC v. Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food) - 2024 FC 253 - 2024-02-16
Federal Court DecisionsBased on these assumptions, Ms. Bélanger calculated the fair market value of the semen straws to be $2,612,016. [...] Again, the fair market value is what a purchaser would accept to pay to a consenting seller in an open and free market. [...] [95] I agree with the Minister that VPN is to be considered as any third party purchaser dealing with Harpur Farms at arm’s length.
-
102.
Lam v. Law Society of Ontario - 2024 FC 265 - 2024-02-16
Federal Court DecisionsThe reason for this is simple – it is not fair to a defendant to have to respond to claims that are not explained in sufficient detail for them to understand what the claim is based on, or to have to deal with claims based on unsupported assumptions or speculation. [...] Neither is it fair to the Court that will have to ensure that the hearing is done in a fair and efficient manner. [...] 4. These are just a few typical issues that need to be resolved immediately before there is a fair trial.
-
103.
Zhao-Jie v. TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. - 2024 FC 261 - 2024-02-16
Federal Court DecisionsThe Claim alleges the plaintiff is “the Plenipotentiary of the victim Chen Zhe to deal with the matter with TD from Feb. 2, 2010” (paragraph 2), with “TD” referring to the defendant, TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. (paragraph 1). [...] The reason for this is simple – it is not fair to a defendant to have to respond to claims that are not explained in sufficient detail for them to understand what the claim is based on, or to have to deal with claims based on unsupported assumptions or speculation. [...] Neither is it fair to the Court that will have to ensure that the hearing is done in a fair and efficient manner.
-
104.
El-Nakady v. Canada - 2024 FC 254 - 2024-02-15
Federal Court DecisionsCRA’s lack of action and undue delay have been causing the plaintiff getting calls from CRA collection agency, dealing with very stressful and demanding collection calls from CRA, not having access to own refunds funds on a timely fashion and spending countless hours calling CRA call centers in hope of resolving the [...] (Right to be treated fairly and Right to complete, accurate, clear, and timely information)[.] [...] However, this general grant of jurisdiction is limited by section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act, which provides that if a statute provides for an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada of a decision of a federal board, commission, or other tribunal, then the Federal Court cannot review, restrain, set aside, or otherwise deal
-
105.
Canada (Commissioner of Competition) v. Rogers Communications Inc. - 2024 FC 239 - 2024-02-13
Federal Court Decisions[45] The Commissioner’s submissions recognized a public interest in fair competition (citing Resolve Business Outsourcing Income Fund v. Canadian Financial Wellness Group Inc., 2014 NSCA 98, at paras 26-31). [...] This would contravene the Government’s Rules of Engagement and the judicially endorsed principles of fairness and equality that should govern the tender process. [...] [68] Second, the Court and its Registry are familiar with confidentiality issues and can rapidly deal with requests to file a confidential version of an application record under section 11, pending discussions between counsel for the Commissioner and the respondent or its counsel.
-
106.
Hameed v. Canada (Prime Minister) - 2024 FC 242 - 2024-02-13
Federal Court DecisionsSome courts have had to deal with a 10 to 15% vacancy rate for years now. [...] Some courts have had to deal with a 10 to 15% vacancy rate for years now. [...] Failure “to deal fairly, quickly and efficiently with criminal trials inevitably leads to the community’s frustration with the judicial system and eventually to a feeling of contempt for court procedures” (p. 1221).
-
107.
Arvan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 223 - 2024-02-09
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). [...] [21] It is also true that, when an administrative decision maker does not properly deal with evidence squarely contradicting its findings of fact, the Court may intervene and infer that the decision maker overlooked the contradictory evidence when reaching its conclusion (Ozdemir v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and [...] The Officer instead adopted a calibrated approach, balancing the various factors at stake in assessing the best interests of Ms. Arvan’s child, both in the section of the Decision dealing specifically with the best interests of the child and in his conclusion.
-
108.
Breckon v. Cermaq Canada Ltd. - 2024 FC 225 - 2024-02-09
Federal Court DecisionsIt is also worth noting that Sun‐Rype was a case dealing with class certification, not with the approval of a settlement agreement. [...] This again defies the rules of fairness and reasonableness to the Class Members. [...] [134] These risks were addressed above in the likelihood of recovery subsection when dealing with the approval of the Settlement Agreement.
-
109.
Fatomiluyi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 220 - 2024-02-09
Federal Court DecisionsAssociate Chief Justice Gagné found that this extra requirement constituted external information which should have properly been put to the Applicant and granted the judicial review based on a breach of procedural fairness (at paras 9-12). [...] This provision is found in Part 12 of the Regulations, which deals with students and study permits. [...] [24] Ultimately, Justice Sadrehashemi, relying on Iriafe, found that the officer breached the applicant’s procedural fairness rights by not providing any notice of the officer’s concerns with accreditation and not providing any opportunity to respond to these concerns (Okedayo at paras 22-23).
-
110.
Centric Brands Holding LLC v. Stikeman Elliott LLP - 2024 FC 204 - 2024-02-08
Federal Court DecisionsIn support of this submission, Centric relies on Ms. Dell’Osso-Caputo’s evidence that during the Relevant Period KVZ was negotiating a licensing deal for use of the Mark with a Canadian business named Corey Vines, but that the deal was called off in June 2018 shortly after the announcement of the Agreement to sell the Mark [...] The initial release of the film was delayed by several years and no deal was ever concluded. [...] As previously noted, the Applicant relies on Ms. Dell’Osso-Caputo’s evidence that, during the Relevant Period, KVZ was negotiating a licensing deal for use of the Mark with the Canadian business, Corey Vines, but that the deal was called off in June 2018 shortly after the announcement of the Agreement to sell the Mark to
-
111.
Kalonda Lubangi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 195 - 2024-02-07
Federal Court Decisions[5] The reviewing court must therefore adopt the principle of judicial restraint, intervening only “where it is truly necessary to do so in order to safeguard the legality, rationality and fairness of the administrative process” (para 13). [...] As I pointed out at the hearing of the application for judicial review, Guideline 8 is very limited and deals solely with providing procedural accommodations where necessary (see s 5.2).
-
112.
Marie-Jewell v. Salt River First Nation #195 - 2024 FC 192 - 2024-02-07
Federal Court DecisionsThis matter does not deal with a commercial or contractual agreement of a private nature, and thus the cases cited by the Respondent are of limited applicability. [...] In this case, the Court is dealing with a Decision rendered by SRFN with respect to election eligibility. [...] C. Was the Applicant denied procedural fairness? [48] My finding on the unreasonableness of the Decision is determinative and there is no need to consider the submissions on procedural fairness.
-
113.
Takeda Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc. - 2024 FC 106 - 2024-02-07
Federal Court Decisions[42] Overall, I found Dr. Rowlings to be a forthright and fair witness who was knowledgeable about pharmaceutical formulation and whose testimony assisted the Court. [...] Adherence to the claim language allows the claims to be read in a way in which the inventor is presumed to have intended, thereby promoting fairness and predictability: Biogen at para 72; Free World Trust at paras 31(a), (b) and 41. [...] The public is entitled to rely on the words used provided the words used are interpreted fairly and knowledgeably.” [Emphasis in the original.]
-
114.
White v. Canada Post Corporation - 2024 FC 198 - 2024-02-07
Federal Court Decisions[2] The CHRC decided not to deal with the complaint, as recommended in the Section 41 Report for Decision [Section 41 Report]. [...] The Court has no jurisdiction, though, to deal with the actions of the Applicant’s union and CPC. [...] Commission to deal with complaint Irrecevabilité 41 (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
-
115.
Crawford v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 176 - 2024-02-05
Federal Court Decisions[21] Although procedural fairness was plead in the Notice of Application, the Applicant confirmed that he would not be advancing this argument. [...] It 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. [...] e) The Applicant’s H&C application was based on very broad and general information about Liberia, and did not deal specifically with his needs (which were not identified in any event) and how his needs could not be met, or that there were challenges to meet his needs, in Liberia.
-
116.
Cassidy v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 174 - 2024-02-02
Federal Court DecisionsThe principle that the individual or individuals affected by a decision should have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly underlies the duty of procedural fairness and is rooted in the right to be heard [...]. [...] Subsections 222(3) and (4) of the Act impose limitation periods on the CRA’s collection of debts, but these provisions are found in the part of the Act that deals with Collections.
-
117.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Llewellyn - 2024 FC 143 - 2024-01-31
Federal Court Decisions[18] The Decision also notes the similar complaints made by Mr. Llewellyn in 2008 to NSIRA’s predecessor, the SIRC. SIRC concluded, in accordance with its governing legislation, that it did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the complaint because some allegations did not pertain to “an act or thing” done by CSIS and [...] [98] The amicus relies on Canada (Attorney General) v Hutton, 2023 FCA 45 at para 53 [Hutton], in support of the importance of considering the need to provide the parties with accurate information to permit the fair and just resolution of the Application for Judicial Review as a factor at the balancing stage. [...] However, the redactions overall are minimal and as a result, Mr. Llewellyn has a great deal of unredacted information that he can publicly refer to in his Application for Judicial Review.
-
118.
Comartin v. Marsh - 2024 FC 160 - 2024-01-31
Federal Court DecisionsIt remains however, that “For a case to be allowed to move forward, there must be a fair prospect (usually within the framework of case management) that the plaintiff is intent on bringing the case to its end and has the means to do so. [...] It is necessary only to note that it is uncontroverted that Ms. Comartin was dealing with very challenging personal issues. [...] However, it does not allow me to sufficiently conclude that there is a fair prospect the Plaintiffs are intent on bringing this action to an end.
-
119.
Alldowell v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 142 - 2024-01-30
Federal Court DecisionsThe FA concluded that the applicant was treated fairly in accordance with the applicable regulations and policies and that he could not grant the remedies sought. [...] He submits that the decision was based on false information and that his training was not conducted within the required standards of fairness and equality. [...] Since these two complaints were sent to the Committee for its recommendations, independently of the Grievance referral, the FA did not deal with them.
-
120.
Munir v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 153 - 2024-01-30
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. [...] As a result, it is unnecessary to deal with the other issues raised by the Applicant.
-
121.
Canadian Frontline Nurses v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2024 FC 42 - 2024-01-29
Federal Court Decisions63 (1) Dans les soixante jours qui suivent la cessation d’effet ou l’abrogation d’une déclaration de situation de crise, le gouverneur en conseil est tenu de faire faire une enquête sur les circonstances qui ont donné lieu à la déclaration et les mesures prises pour faire face à la crise. [...] d) la personne qui cherche à entrer au Canada afin de faire une demande d’asile; [...] Sachez que Nous jugeons les mesures d’intervention ci-après nécessaires pour faire face à l’état d’urgence :
-
122.
Prado v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 136 - 2024-01-26
Federal Court Decisions[3] Ms. Prado also argues that the Officer breached procedural fairness by issuing their decision without providing her with notice in order to file further submissions and evidence despite her request for such notification. [...] [16] As noted by Ms. Prado, the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Operational Instructions entitled “The humanitarian and compassionate assessment: Dealing with family relationships” (“Guidelines”) specifically cautions officers to be sensitive to spousal sponsorship breakdown: “You should be sensitive to situations in [...] [21] Because the Officer deals with Ms. Prado’s experiences in Brazil as only relevant to future risk of physical harm from one individual and availability of mental health in Brazil, the rest of the Officer’s analysis on establishment and hardship read as if Ms. Prado had no difficulties in Brazil prior to coming to
-
123.
Matas v. Canada (Global Affairs) - 2024 FC 88 - 2024-01-23
Federal Court Decisions[21] Section 3 of the PA and subsection 19(1) of the ATIA therefore deal with information about an identifiable individual that is recorded in any form including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, information described in paragraphs (a) to (i) of section 3 of the PA. The information must be given a [...] e) communication à un organisme d’enquête déterminé par règlement et qui en fait la demande par écrit, en vue de faire respecter des lois fédérales ou provinciales ou pour la tenue d’enquêtes licites, pourvu que la demande précise les fins auxquelles les renseignements sont destinés et la nature des renseignements demandés;
-
124.
Brown v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 105 - 2024-01-22
Federal Court Decisions[12] On February 2, 2022, an IRCC officer sent the applicant a procedural fairness letter care of former counsel. [...] [13] Former counsel responded to the procedural fairness letter by letter dated February 25, 2022. [...] Subsequent to this matter being perfected, the Court has adopted revised guidelines dealing with allegations against counsel or other authorized representatives: see paragraphs 46 to 63 of the Consolidated Practice Guidelines for Citizenship, Immigration, and Refugee Protection Proceedings (October 31, 2023).
-
125.
Nooristani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 99 - 2024-01-22
Federal Court Decisions[7] I am persuaded that the RAD breached procedural fairness by making new credibility findings. [...] In these reasons, I deal first with the preliminary issue of the admissibility of the further affidavit submitted by the Applicant in support of his judicial review application, and then I address the procedural fairness issue. [...] [28] As noted above, the duty of procedural fairness is heightened in exclusion cases.