7,645 result(s)
-
101.
Parmar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2010 FC 723 - 2010-07-02
Federal Court Decisions[1] This is a case of medical inadmissibility to Canada, on grounds of excessive demand for social services and does not deal with excessive demand for health services. [...] It will not be necessary for me to deal with all of the submissions put forward by counsel for the applicant except for two grounds which are determinative: (1) a breach of procedural fairness in failing to provide adequate reasons and (2) unreasonable findings of fact in terms of ability and willingness of the applicant to [...] (4) The M.O. shall examine forthwith Mr. Parmar’s fairness response in compliance with recent jurisprudence and, in compliance with the requirements of procedural fairness, shall assess whether and in what means Mr. Parmar’s fairness response impacted on the information identified in the fairness letter necessarily provided
-
102.
Mullings v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2001 FCT 607 - 2001-06-07
Federal Court Decisions[12] The applicant relies on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, where L'Heureux-Dubé J. commented on the duty of procedural fairness of an immigration officer dealing with applications pursuant to subsection 114(2) of the Immigration [...] The Lorenz notes, a two page type written document, deals in some detail with the case history of Mavis Pauline Baker from her entry in Canada on August 8, 1981, and comes to these conclusions: [...] [...] The Gautier memorandum is a substantial eight page document dealing with issues, background, considerations and recommendation.
-
103.
Gallant v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2011 FC 537 - 2011-05-10
Federal Court Decisions[3] The Commissioner addressed two grievances dealing with the same issue as per paragraph 46 of the Offender Complaints and Grievances (Directive 081). [...] [12] The Respondent argues that the Applicant was afforded procedural fairness as he was provided with reasons for the delays. [...] The Respondent states that CSC followed paragraph 41 of Directive 081 and that there was no breach of procedural fairness.
-
104.
Kollar v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce - 2002 FCT 848 - 2002-08-09
Federal Court DecisionsThe investigation report does not deal with this evidence. Was the evidence not accepted? [...] In my opinion, the investigation report did not deal with this evidence and consequently, the investigation report did not deal with the applicant's first part of her complaint which was that the respondent failed to supply her with an harassment free work place. [...] [42] Because of my finding, it is not necessary to deal with the other issues raised by this application.
-
105.
Ross v. Canada (Justice) - 2014 FC 338 - 2014-04-07
Federal Court DecisionsIn light of this, I consider that the issue of procedural fairness arising from the non-production of the Final Investigative Report is now moot and do not propose to deal with it further. [...] These included the Manitoba Securities Commission Settlement Agreements and the Assignment Deal. [...] The undisclosed Assignment Deal would have provided a basis to question the credibility of the investors in general and that of Mr. Simpson in particular.
-
106.
Davidson v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2019 FC 997 - 2019-07-25
Federal Court DecisionsWhen dealing with a judicial review, it is not just a matter of requesting the disclosure of any document that could be relevant in the hopes of later establishing relevance. [...] However, and with respect, the Supreme Court of Canada was not dealing with an issue of procedural fairness as is now before this Court; it was dealing with the role of the court’s intervention into an administrative proceeding at a preliminary stage. [...] [49] Given my finding of procedural unfairness, I need not deal with the other substantive issues raised by the Applicant
-
107.
Dios v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2008 FC 1322 - 2008-11-26
Federal Court DecisionsThey simply failed to deal with the problem and acted as though it did not exist. [...] [70] Consequently, there is no breach of procedural fairness on this case. [...] The allegations are well-known by the Applicants and they have had every opportunity to deal with them.
-
108.
Konesavarathan v. University of Guelph Radio - 2018 FC 1217 - 2018-12-04
Federal Court DecisionsA. Did the Commission violate the Applicant’s right to procedural fairness by: [...] A. Did the Commission violate the Applicant’s right to procedural fairness? [...] There has never been any serious challenge to the Commission’s jurisdiction to deal with the case.
-
109.
Burlacu v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2021 FC 339 - 2021-04-19
Federal Court Decisions(i) a provision of a statute or regulation, or of a direction or other instrument made or issued by the employer, that deals with terms and conditions of employment, or [...] This is a fundamental right of procedural fairness: see Oleynik v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 5 at para 54. [...] He did not name Mr. Cloutier as a respondent in his complaint, nor did he raise any concerns at the time about him dealing with the complaint.
-
110.
Michelin v. Caw - 1996-12-19
Federal Court Decisions.... (a.1) any fair dealing with any work for the purposes of criticism, review or newspaper summary, if [...] Second, "fair use" in the American system is not equivalent to "fair dealing" in Canada. [...] In addition, the Defendants did not treat the original work in a fair manner, a further requirement of the "fair dealing" exception.
-
111.
Salmon v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2014 FC 1098 - 2014-11-20
Federal Court Decisions[27] Questions of procedural fairness are reviewable on a standard of correctness. [...] Was there a breach of procedural fairness? The applicant’s position [...] [15] Moreover, both the purpose of the Act and the nature of the question deal with protecting the public by preventing acts of unlawful interference in civil aviation.
-
112.
Ip v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2000-02-02
Federal Court DecisionsThere is no question that another Minister would have to act in her stead in a second opinion dealing with the same applicant. [...] [30] The Gautier memorandum is a substantial eight page document dealing with issues, background, considerations and recommendation. [...] Does the duty of procedural fairness require the provision of written reasons for a Minister"s opinion under subsection 70(5) of the Immigration Act ?
-
113.
Sweetgrass First Nation v. Gollan - 2006 FC 778 - 2006-06-20
Federal Court Decisions[25] The Sparvier decision, above, offers considerable guidance for dealing with the kinds of issues raised in the case at bar. [...] To the extent that this Court has jurisdiction, the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness are to be applied. [...] Administrative boards that deal with matters of policy will be closely comparable to the boards composed of municipal councillors.
-
114.
Braceland v. Revenue Canada Fairness Group Appeals - 1999-03-31
Federal Court DecisionsBraceland v. Revenue Canada Fairness Group Appeals, Braceland c. Revenue Canada Fairness Group Appeals, T-4-98 [...] REVENUE CANADA FAIRNESS GROUP APPEALS Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER [...] - Points #1, #2 & #4 - These comments all deal with taxation year prior to 1994.
-
115.
Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2018 FC 1291 - 2018-12-19
Federal Court Decisions(c) dealing with the matter would serve no useful purpose because of the length of time that has elapsed since the matter arose; or [...] (d) there is any other valid reason for not dealing with the matter. [...] I note here that the Respondent deals with justiciability both in the context of standing and as a standalone issue.
-
116.
Anani v. Royal Bank of Canada - 2020 FC 870 - 2020-08-31
Federal Court DecisionsOnly in plain and obvious cases should the Commission decide not to deal with a complaint. [...] Is the Decision not to deal with the complaint pursuant to paragraph 41(1)(d) of the CHRA reasonable? [...] B. Procedural Fairness Review [40] The Federal Court of Appeal has established that there is no standard of review for issues of procedural fairness.
-
117.
Lusina v. Bell Canada - 2005 FC 134 - 2005-04-13
Federal Court DecisionsOn October 19th, she requested that Bell deal directly with her rather than through her counsel. [...] It appears that, while dealing directly with Bell, she continued to consult counsel. [...] At this point, Bell was not aware of Ms. Lusina's dealings with the CHRC.
-
118.
Sterling v. Lower Nicola First Nations - 2019 FC 371 - 2019-03-26
Federal Court Decisions[5] Given the Court’s conclusion on the procedural fairness issues, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Court to pre-determine what Council may decide when it conducts a procedurally fair process. [...] Without dealing with the minutia of devolution and division of the 320 acres, the land was purportedly divided and Dr. Sterling acquired a parcel (Parcel A-5) of 17.5 acres through her grandmother’s estate. [...] Fairness would dictate that the Applicants were owed this minimal level of procedural fairness.
-
119.
Gandhi v. Canada (Canada Border Services Agency) - 2015 FC 436 - 2015-04-10
Federal Court DecisionsHe also asserts that Ms. Clément had a great deal of influence in the CBSA. [...] [47] I am now going to deal with the applicant’s specific allegations. [...] [63] I shall, however, deal with the applicant’s two arguments concerning procedural fairness, namely that the Tribunal prevented the applicant from presenting his arguments, and that the Tribunal should have suspended the proceeding while awaiting a decision by the PSLRB.
-
120.
Minde v. Ermineskin Cree Nation - 2006 FC 1311 - 2006-10-31
Federal Court Decisions(b) The BCR and Procedural Fairness [44] Although it is well-recognized the content of the rules of procedural fairness vary depending on the circumstances, in my view, there can be no question the applicant was entitled to procedural fairness in respect of the BCR of December 4, 2005 which declared that, in accordance to [...] As I have concluded, the Tribal Council reached this decision in breach of the applicant’s rights of procedural fairness. [...] [72] Subsection 18.1(3) of the Federal Courts Act deals with the powers of the Federal Court.
-
121.
Hughes v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2009 FC 573 - 2009-06-08
Federal Court Decisions[31] As a matter of law, principles of natural justice and the duty of fairness include the right to a fair hearing. [...] [35] First, the Commission was dealing with relatively complex circumstances. [...] In view of the above analysis, I do not consider it necessary to deal with each one.
-
122.
Pete v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2005 FC 993 - 2005-07-18
Federal Court DecisionsFair elections are crucial for First Nations governance. To allow an incumbent band council to replace a legitimately appointed electoral officer removes the independence of electoral officers and undermines fair elections. [...] After a good deal of discussion, the Band Council decided to cancel the election, and appoint a new electoral officer. [...] [60] In the present case, the power has only been exercised to deal with the appointment of an electoral officer; it has not been exercised to deal with the procedure and grounds for removing an electoral officer.
-
123.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Emmett - 2013 FC 610 - 2013-06-06
Federal Court Decisions[23] Finally, on the issue of systemic age discrimination, the applicant argues the Commission failed to provide any reasons at all, which is a violation of procedural fairness. [...] [30] On the procedural fairness argument, the respondent points out there is no statutory requirement for the Commission to give reasons and that the requirements of procedural fairness are flexible. [...] [47] It is also not clear that the Commission properly considered whether to exercise its discretion to decline to deal with a complaint on the basis of an employer’s employment equity plan.
-
124.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Hughes - 2014 FC 278 - 2014-03-21
Federal Court DecisionsCommission to deal with complaint 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 [...] [53] There is no question that the hearing before the PSLRB was fair and that Mr Hughes had a fair opportunity to put forward his case. [...] [70] The Applicant submits that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness when it informed the parties that it was going to deal with the issue of liability at the hearing and hold a separate hearing to deal with remedy, but then proceeded to provide a remedy in the decision without providing either party with a chance to
-
125.
Berberi v. Canadian Human Rights Tribunal - 2011 FC 485 - 2011-04-21
Federal Court DecisionsIn my opinion, three issues raise questions of procedural fairness and are reviewable on the standard of correctness; that is the postponement issue, the alleged error of the Tribunal in dealing only with the question of remedies, and the competency of counsel. [...] [47] The remaining issue of procedural fairness concerns the competency of counsel. [...] The Tribunal correctly went on to deal with the issue of a remedy, including monetary compensation.