7,644 result(s)
-
701.
Shahib v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 1250 - 2005-09-14
Federal Court Decisions[2] Did the Applicants receive a fair hearing? [3] Were the Board's credibility findings patently unreasonable? [...] Further, they contended that the Applicants did not receive a fair hearing. [...] [9] The Respondent submits that subsection 162(2) of the Act imposes an obligation on the Board to deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit.
-
702.
Hacikyaner v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency) - 2002 FCT 1066 - 2002-10-15
Federal Court DecisionsThe fairness provisions are designated to permit the Agency to assist clients in resolving problems through no fault of their own. [...] [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 [...] 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.
-
703.
Mia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2001 FCT 1150 - 2001-10-23
Federal Court DecisionsTremblay-Lamer J. did not deal with this piece of evidence in the application for judicial review. [...] [8] The PCDO did not violate the rules of fairness by not providing an interview to the applicant. [...] [10] I will now proceed to deal with the issue as to whether the PCDO should have shown his reasons to the applicant prior to releasing his decision.
-
704.
Ramnanan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 632 - 2015-05-14
Federal Court Decisions4. Did the Officer breach procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons? [...] 5. Did the Officer breach procedural fairness by failing to disclose the source of his assertion that the applicant appeared to be a “one man crime wave”? [...] 6. Did the Officer breach procedural fairness by failing to call the applicant for a personal interview before rendering a decision?
-
705.
Glowinski v. Canada (Treasury Board) - 2006 FC 78 - 2006-01-26
Federal Court DecisionsIt was clearly a directive by Treasury Board as to how departments should deal fairly with their employees. [...] Duty to act fairly [46] The applicant submits that the respondents breached their duty to act fairly because they did not provide the applicant with the right to negotiate. [...] The duty to act fairly applies to the applicant being provided with an opportunity of knowing the reasons for a decision being made against his interests, and an opportunity to respond.
-
706.
Premakumaran v. Canada - 2003 FCT 635 - 2003-05-20
Federal Court DecisionsBare assertions of conclusions are insufficient to constitution material facts, for such do not provide fair and adequate notice of a party's position. [...] In Weatherall Mr Justice of Appeal Stone has reduced a good deal of case law into two propositions, first, the controversy must be clearly and precisely defined in a pleading and second, a pleading should be drafted to give fair notice of the case to be met so that the other side may direct his or her evidence to the [...] For further explanation of and authorities dealing with this proposition see Larden v. Canada, [1998] 145 F.T.R. 140 (F.C.T.D.).
-
707.
Zak v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2019 FC 1503 - 2019-11-25
Federal Court DecisionsAt times you also did not demonstrate the level of professionalism expected in your dealings with the public and with other stakeholders. [...] To not provide you with this information after being seized with it would not have been procedurally fair. [...] [22] The Applicant submits that the Adjudicator failed to adequately address the RCMP’s failures to provide a fair opportunity for him to demonstrate his suitability in accordance with s. 3.1.1 of the Administration Manual, Chapter 27A (Probationary Employees) (Administration Manual) which deals with support, guidance, and
-
708.
Galderma Canada Inc v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FC 1023 - 2017-11-09
Federal Court Decisions[22] As part of the Applicant’s challenge to the correctness of the Board’s decision, the Applicant raises an issue of procedural fairness. [...] 1. that the Board breached procedural fairness by deciding this matter, in part, on points not argued by either party; and [...] A. Procedural Fairness [30] The Applicant did not argue in Court the issue raised in its Memorandum regarding the failure to appoint an advisory counsel.
-
709.
Zündel, Re - 2004 FC 198 - 2004-02-06
Federal Court Decisionsc) the judge shall deal with all matters as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness and natural justice permit; [...] [...] [26] I will deal with the motion as if it were a motion for a stay. [...] Mr. Zündel argues that expeditiousness must not supersede natural justice and fairness.
-
710.
Prince v. Sucker Creek First Nation - 2008 FC 1268 - 2008-11-14
Federal Court Decisions3. Was the decision to suspend the applicants lacking in procedural fairness? [...] 2. Was the decision to remove the applicants lacking in procedural fairness? [...] The appellate body under the Election Regulations, the Election Appeal Committee, does not have any specific ability to deal with errors of this nature.
-
711.
Genencor International Inc. v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) - 2008 FC 608 - 2008-05-15
Federal Court Decisions[33] In what follows, I will deal first with the issue of standard of review, secondly, with the issues of procedural fairness and natural justice and finally, with the issues going to the merits of the decision under appeal. [...] Tribunals charged with regulating economic activity have not had placed on them the same high standards as tribunals dealing with personal individual rights. [...] In Western Electric Co. v. Baldwin International Radio of Canada,...the Court cited earlier authority dealing with the word “conduit” as used in a patent claim.
-
712.
Hiebert v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2003 FC 1503 - 2003-12-19
Federal Court Decisions[28] The Act also provides a distinct way of dealing with ascertained forfeiture amounts in the event that there is a dispute over contravention or quantums. [...] [31] From this I conclude it was Parliament's intent to deal with sums assessed under the ascertained forfeiture procedure by way of ss. 129, 131 and 133 of the Act and not by way of s. 3.3(1). [...] However, the Respondent takes the position that this matter is not before me on this Application, which deals with the ss. 3.3(1) decision only, and that the Applicant's assertions in this regard are incorrect.
-
713.
Benchery v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2020 FC 217 - 2020-02-07
Federal Court DecisionsIn the circumstances of this case, I agree that this issue must be dealt with as a matter of procedural fairness. [...] The second issue also deals with procedural fairness. [9] The Federal Court of Appeal recently addressed how to approach issues of procedural fairness in Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 [Canadian Pacific]. [...] [15] There is no case law dealing with the interpretation of paragraph 228(4)(b) of the IRPR. In the context of hearings before the Board, subsection 167(2) of the IRPA provides similar protection for vulnerable claimants:
-
714.
Thambipillai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 1999-07-22
Federal Court Decisions[3] I will deal first with the issues of natural justice and procedural fairness. [...] [9] Accordingly, having reviewed these matters, I am satisfied that there was no denial of natural justice nor procedural fairness, nor was there denial of a fair hearing to the applicant. [...] If so, can it deal with such exclusion issue without expressly raising that issue?
-
715.
Zare v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2010 FC 1024 - 2010-10-20
Federal Court Decisions[21] Questions of procedural fairness are assessed on a correctness standard. [...] Was the Applicant denied procedural fairness by the email transmission of the request to provide additional information? [...] Although I am satisfied that the Visa Officer has acted in good faith in sending the request by email, the Respondent has an obligation to deal with the Applicant fairly which goes beyond simply pressing the email send button.
-
716.
Ollevier v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2008 FC 199 - 2008-02-18
Federal Court DecisionsIt is always for the Court to decide whether an administrative decision-maker complied with its duty of procedural fairness. [...] [45] In view of my conclusion on the first question, it is not necessary to deal with this issue. [...] However, for the sake of completeness, I will deal briefly with the Appeal Board’s alleged failure to deal with two submissions made by Mr. Ollevier.
-
717.
Alfred v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 1134 - 2005-08-18
Federal Court Decisions[36] Given my finding with respect to procedural fairness, it is not necessary for me to deal with this issue. [...] However, as the matter may well arise again in the course of redetermining the PRRA application, I did consider whether to deal with what constitutes new evidence. [...] [38] Following consideration of those submissions, an order will issue allowing the application for judicial review and dealing with certification of a question.
-
718.
Lord v. Canada - 2001 FCT 397 - 2001-04-26
Federal Court DecisionsThe Concise Oxford Dictionary (1990) defines "treatment" as "a process or manner of behaving towards or dealing with a person or thing...." [...] Q.B.), a case dealing with restrictions imposed on an accused in remand custody while awaiting trial, McDonald J. stated as follows, at p. 372: [...] 4. Les actes discriminatoires prévus aux articles 5 à 14.1 peuvent faire l'objet d'une plainte en vertu de la partie III et toute personne reconnue coupable de ces actes peut faire l'objet des ordonnances prévues aux articles 53 et 54.
-
719.
McIlvenna v. Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank) - 2013 FC 678 - 2013-06-18
Federal Court DecisionsAlso, due to the quasi-constitutional nature of the Act, a fair, large, liberal and purposive interpretation must be applied (see Robichaud v. Canada (Treasury Board) [1987], 2 S.C.R. 84). [...] . . . 15 Procedural fairness does not require the Commission to undergo a lengthy analysis of the complaint at the initial stages. [...] If it is not plain and obvious to the Commission that the complaint falls under one of the grounds for not dealing with it under section 41, the Commission should, with dispatch, proceed to deal with it.
-
720.
Figueroa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2003 FC 1339 - 2003-12-18
Federal Court DecisionsThe Applicant says that the lack of reasons amounts to a breach of procedural fairness. [...] Similarly, there is no issue raised concerning the choice of procedure by the Respondent in dealing with the Applicant's request. [...] [19] In this case and upon the facts presented, there is a doubt about the fairness with which the Applicant was treated.
-
721.
Ross v. Mohawk Council of Kanesatake - 2003 FCT 531 - 2003-04-29
Federal Court DecisionsThe section dealing with the authority of the Commission includes the following: [...] There is no evidence to show that it was ever finally accepted but there is evidence, from Grand Chief Gabriel and Louise Bonspille, that the Respondent Council acted together with the Commission in dealing with dismissals. [...] [95] This behaviour is another manifestation of breach of the duty to act fairly.
-
722.
Safaeian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2024 FC 846 - 2024-06-05
Federal Court DecisionsThe Applicant will respect any fair and rightful disposition by the Court. [...] The Court had issued a number of Directions dealing with the letter submitted by Counsel for the Applicant on April 5. [...] [13] Time was required to deal with the communications from Counsel.
-
723.
Brysenko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2000-09-14
Federal Court Decisions[9] The Yan decision deals with a situation in which a breach of the rules of fairness occurred. [...] However, it does not assist the applicant because it did not deal with a second visa officer revisiting a decision that had been made by another officer. [...] Thus, there was no breach of the rules of fairness. [10] I am not persuaded that the doctrine of functus officio applies to the first decision, nor that the procedure that was followed was in breach of the rules of fairness or natural justice.
-
724.
Bamengzut v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2007 FC 1260 - 2007-11-30
Federal Court Decisions2. Mr. Bamengzut failed to establish any breach of procedural fairness. [...] The fourth deals with Mr. Bamengzut’s testimony at the hearing as to whether, during a certain period of time, he was safe from harm because he lived in a protected environment. [...] Serious allegations of unfairness have been raised in respect of the conduct of the RPD. To deal with the application other than on the merits would leave those allegations outstanding.
-
725.
Desnomie v. Peepeekisis First Nation - 2007 FC 426 - 2007-04-20
Federal Court DecisionsIn fact, counsel for the respondent has directed this Court to an irrelevant statutory provision, one that deals with amendments to the Custom Election Act, to support this argument. [...] [14] The applicant submits that the Council had a duty of fairness towards him which it failed to uphold. [...] Nevertheless, I have no hesitation to conclude that there was a patent violation of the applicant’s right to procedural fairness.