7,644 result(s)
-
201.
Mache-Rameau v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2017 FC 43 - 2017-01-13
Federal Court DecisionsGeneral of Canada [AGC], the respondent, essentially maintains that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the allegation of breach of the memorandum of understanding, that the first complaint was considered by the investigator, and that the 10‑page limit does not breach the principles of procedural fairness. [...] [6] The Commission’s decision, which is the subject of this application for judicial review, deals with the Complaint, signed by Ms. Mache-Rameau on May 28, 2012. [...] [58] The Court agrees that Justice Boivin did not deal with the human rights issues raised by the Complaint.
-
202.
Forsch v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency - 2004 FC 513 - 2004-04-02
Federal Court DecisionsHowever, in relation to the first question at issue, interpretation of the tribunal's powers, the tribunal cannot be seen as having a greater deal of expertise than the court, therefore this signals that little deference should be afforded. [...] In my opinion, the legislative intent of subsection 13(1) of the CFIA Act is to grant to the employer, the CFIA, control and autonomy in the manner in which it appoints its employees and deals with complaints in relation to such appointments. [...] This indicates, in my opinion, that the tribunal's recommendations and directions are regarded by the CFIA as integral and important to implementing its staffing policies and in dealing with individual grievances.
-
203.
Walsh v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2015 FC 775 - 2015-06-22
Federal Court Decisions[18] Before dealing with the Applicant’s main arguments, the CDS addressed a few preliminary issues. [...] [42] When dealing with an argument revolving around the adequacy of reasons, one must remember that such an argument cannot be a stand-alone basis for quashing a decision. [...] B. The procedural fairness argument [49] The Committee found that the Applicant was not provided procedural fairness in that the Administrative Review Process was fundamentally flawed.
-
204.
Neyedly v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2020 FC 678 - 2020-06-09
Federal Court Decisions[2] The Applicant says that the decision to deny most of his fairness claim is unreasonable. [...] It also took 44 months to process the Applicant’s first application to the Fairness Board. [...] The audit and dealing with the objections took some time, but this is not the type of extraordinary circumstance that gives rise to taxpayer relief.
-
205.
Joseph v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 904 - 2015-07-24
Federal Court DecisionsThe UNESCO report noted five special education institutions, three of which dealing specifically with persons with learning disabilities, including autism. [...] [41] In my view, the Officer did not breach procedural fairness in conducting and relying on the independent internet search. [...] [45] Overall, in my view the Officer reasonably weighed the BIOC against other factors in dealing with the Applicants’ application for H&C relief.
-
206.
Ribic v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2003 FCT 10 - 2003-01-09
Federal Court DecisionsI need not further deal with this additional material since it has already been released to the applicant. [...] 27. In assessing the expurgated testimony of the witnesses, I think it fair to say that much of the expurgated information deals with operationally sensitive material which would serve to corroborate testimony, given in other parts of the transcripts, which has been disclosed to the applicant. [...] That interest, in my view, is outweighed by the applicant's right to a full and fair defence.
-
207.
Bell Canada v. Communication, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada - 1997-02-21
Federal Court DecisionsThe Act sets out a complete mechanism for dealing with human rights complaints. [...] In dealing with complaints, the Commission must assess the probative value of evidence and decide to further investigate or not. [...] In all these cases it has been held that the investigating body is under a duty to act fairly; but that which fairness requires depends on the nature of the investigation and the consequences which it may have on persons affected by it.
-
208.
Njoroge v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2022 FC 1769 - 2022-12-20
Federal Court DecisionsThe Court must be satisfied the duty of procedural fairness was met. In so doing, the focus is on whether a fair and just process was followed having regard to all the circumstances. [...] [68] The Applicant simply makes bald allegations of bias and lack of procedural fairness. [...] Second, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, the evidence before me demonstrates that Respondent’s counsel has taken reasonable positions throughout the litigation and has been quite patient and fair in her dealings with the Applicant.
-
209.
Chamberlain v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2015 FC 50 - 2015-01-15
Federal Court DecisionsC. Procedural fairness [29] Ms. Chamberlain alleges the adjudicator breached his duty to act fairly and failed to be impartial. [...] [34] Ms. Chamberlain submits the adjudicator erred in concluding that he did not have jurisdiction to deal with her human rights allegations. [...] [37] At the same time, the adjudicator was dealing with a pure question of law which required him to interpret provisions of the PSLRA that were determinative of his jurisdiction to deal with Ms. Chamberlain’s grievance.
-
210.
Loyer v. Air Canada - 2006 FC 1172 - 2006-10-02
Federal Court DecisionsBy order of Justice Farley, Martin Teplitsky, Q.C. was appointed to deal with these grievances. [...] An alleged lack of thoroughness in a human rights investigation engages questions of procedural fairness. [...] Rather, the task for the Court is to isolate any act or omission relevant to the question of procedural fairness, and to determine whether the process followed by the Commission satisfied the level of fairness required in all of the circumstances.
-
211.
Valair v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2004 FC 692 - 2004-05-12
Federal Court Decisions[34] The remaining four paragraphs of her comments on the report deal with harassment. [...] [43] The second ground advanced by counsel for the applicant relates to a breach in fairness. [...] [78] In the circumstances, I conclude the applicant has not satisfied me either the Commission or the investigator erred in not dealing with the polygraph evidence.
-
212.
Kisfaludy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2019 FC 288 - 2019-04-30
Federal Court DecisionsDid the RPD commit a breach of procedural fairness or a reasonable apprehension of bias? [...] A. Did the RPD commit a breach of procedural fairness or a reasonable apprehension of bias? [...] [the decision-maker], whether consciously or unconsciously, would not decide fairly.”
-
213.
Cottrell v. Chippewas of Rama Mnjikaning First Nation - 2009 FC 261 - 2009-03-16
Federal Court DecisionsThis fiduciary duty requires band councils to deal with their members in a manner that embodies principles of utmost fairness. [...] [50] In the Applicant’s view, the Band Council had a fiduciary duty to exercise the utmost fairness in its dealings with him, particularly since his disability rendered him more vulnerable than his fellow Band members. [...] [80] I am not here dealing with the respective contractual rights and obligations of the parties.
-
214.
Matingou-Testie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 651 - 2015-05-20
Federal Court Decisions[5] In this case, the officer accepted a great deal of new evidence and noted that she was satisfied with the applicant’s identity. [...] and safety of the person in question raises an issue of procedural fairness to which the standard of correctness applies, inasmuch as in this case, it is the first time that there is a final decision dealing with the merit of the allegations of persecution or risk made by the applicant under sections 96 and 97 of the Act. [...] In considering the lack of an objective risk of returning to the DRC, the officer noted that the applicant filed a great deal of evidence showing that some failed refugee claimants, and particularly those returning from the United Kingdom, are at risk.
-
215.
Hagos v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2014 FC 231 - 2014-03-07
Federal Court DecisionsThe lack of adequate reasons does not give rise anymore to successful procedural fairness arguments. [...] In fairness, there is not either anything to conclude that the Federal Court decision was endorsed on appeal. [...] Procedural fairness was afforded fully in my view: they were given a full opportunity to respond.
-
216.
Jama v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2020 FC 308 - 2020-02-26
Federal Court Decisions[6] Mr. Aziz’s affidavit, which is dated January 29, 2020, and which, including its annexes, totals close to 750 pages, deals with the following three matters: [...] Justice Noël also advised that the Chief Justice would be assigning a Designated Judge “to deal with all further matters”. [...] [25] In fact, she did just that in her response to the Fairness Letter.
-
217.
Fabiano v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2005 FC 1260 - 2005-09-14
Federal Court Decisions[32] The Board does not deal with the well-groundedness of the Applicant's refugee claim, but certainly it does not raise any credibility issues concerning his narrative. [...] However, the official did not believe that the applicant would have to travel to Argentina in order to deal with such matters. [...] But the document itself says it does not deal with the point at issue.
-
218.
NG v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2008 FC 1298 - 2008-11-21
Federal Court Decisions[32] I wish to first deal with Issue 2c. [33] Issue 2c Did the officer breach procedural fairness when he failed to provide the applicant with documents submitted to the officer by the selection board? [...] [37] Because of my finding on this issue, I need not deal with the remaining issues. [...] (2) No collective agreement may deal with matters governed by the staffing program.
-
219.
Nguesso v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2015 FC 102 - 2015-01-26
Federal Court Decisions” Question allowed—the question deals with the contents of the CTR. 10 [...] ” Question allowed—the question deals with the contents of the CTR. 13 [...] [translation] “You failed to deal with that question when there was a response?
-
220.
Oberlander v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2021 FC 294 - 2021-04-06
Federal Court DecisionsIn addition, section 49 of the ID Rules provides that, in the absence of a provision dealing specifically with a matter, the ID “may do whatever is necessary to deal with the matter.” [...] I am not saying that the Court would not have the broad discretion to deal with those issues. [...] Until the moment where the ID makes determinations on the issues raised by Mr. Oberlander in his stay motion, I am not persuaded that the Court should be the forum to deal with the matter.
-
221.
Chaudhry v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 1015 - 2006-08-24
Federal Court DecisionsMany of the authorities which expressly deal with waiver indicate that a failure to make a timely or fulsome objection to a natural justice deficiency is not necessarily fatal to raising the issue in the context of a judicial review proceeding. [...] This choice is not really a choice to sit on one’s rights, but rather a choice to make the allegation of bias in the forum best equipped to deal with it. [...] [22] In light of my finding with respect to the issue of fairness, it is unnecessary to deal with Mr. Chaudhry’s second argument concerning the issue of state protection.
-
222.
Knappett Construction Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Labour) - 1999-03-08
Federal Court DecisionsThese are promised, although delayed, reasons which deal primarily with the consolidation, but which also touch on the stay of the 1997 application and the filing of further affidavit material relevant to both applications. [...] involving the wages of construction workers on federal projects, subject to the Fair Wage and Hours of Labour Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-4 (the "Fair Wage Act"), which the Regional Director of the Department of Labour again held to be those specified under the Fair Wage Minimum Rate Schedule to the B.C. Skills Development Act. [...] [12] I next deal with the issue of supplemental affidavits. By way of particular background, the Fair Wage Act and Regulations impose on all federal construction projects the relevant provincial wage.
-
223.
Ahanin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2012 FC 180 - 2012-02-08
Federal Court Decisions[3] The Applicant claims that, through a construction company – Navid Construction – he had business dealings with the Shah of Iran’s nephew. [...] The fax cover-page does not even identify the RPD member who was dealing with the claim. [...] The RPD simply failed to deal with this matter. A breach of procedural fairness can only be overlooked if there is no doubt that it had no material effect on the decision.
-
224.
Shkabari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - 2006 FC 856 - 2006-07-13
Federal Court DecisionsThe applicants argue that the refusal is a breach of procedural fairness. [...] [25] With respect to procedural fairness, I will deal with each of the arguments raised by the applicants. [...] First, I will discuss the Board's refusal to have the documents verified and, second, I will deal with the Guideline 7 argument.
-
225.
Syed v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2011 FC 965 - 2011-07-29
Federal Court Decisions[23] The third issue concerns procedural fairness. Issues of procedural fairness are reviewable on a standard of correctness. [...] Members of the Applicant’s school were not precluded from sitting on the PRB, as long as they did not have day-to-day dealings with the Applicant, and they did not. [...] As the Respondent says, the Applicant has simply failed to demonstrate why staff from his school who had no day-to-day dealings with him but who did have a specialized knowledge about the skills that a geo tech needs could not provide a fair assessment of the Applicant’s progress.