vLex Canada

Case Law

  • Tan v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2018 FCA 186

    Mr. Tan, the appellant, a foreign national who was surrendered to Canadian authorities following a request by the Minister of Justice under the Extradition Act, S.C. 1999, c. 18 (Extradition Act), was convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (Criminal Code) and, while currently serving a sentence in a Canadian penitentiary, filed a complaint of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 (CHRA). The Canadian Human Rights Commission declined to process the claim and when the appellant challenged this decision in the Federal Court, it decided that the Commission’s decision was reasonable. He now appeals to this Court. (See Decision)

    Oct 20, 2018 10:07 AM

  • Careful, Lawyer’s Communications Are Not Always Protected

    The Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently found that the communications and conduct of the employer’s lawyer regarding sexual harassment investigation were not privileged and could be referred to in the employee’s Statement of Claim in the litigation against the employer (See full article)

    Oct 20, 2018 6:07 AM

  • Speak to the Street

    I was walking down the street with Nelson, one of the regional finalists of our 2018 Innovating Justice Award. He’s co-founder of Gavel (and, more visible: @citizen_gavel on Twitter). A social enterprise that calls itself “a civic tech organisation aimed at improving the pace of justice delivery through tech”. As part of the entrepreneurship training we give the finalists we ask the justice entrepreneurs to speak to the street. Find and talk to justice customers. Learn what they need. How they... (See full article)

    Oct 20, 2018 6:07 AM

  • At Whose Expense? the Intolerable Human Cost of Articling

    We know that there is significant discrimination and abuse in articling. We’ve heard the stories and we have the stats too. To cite just a small amount of recent information we have in Ontario: (See full article)

    Oct 20, 2018 6:07 AM

  • Thursday Thinkpiece: Benched–Passion for Law Reform

    Periodically on Thursdays, we present a significant excerpt, usually from a recently published book or journal article. In every case the proper permissions have been obtained. If you are a publisher who would like to participate in this feature, please let us know via the site’s contact form. (See full article)

    Oct 20, 2018 6:07 AM

  • R. v. Cyr-Langlois -

    R. v. Cyr-Langlois (See Decision)

    Oct 19, 2018 10:07 AM

  • Appiah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1043

    The applicant, a Ghanaian national, challenges the legality or reasonableness of a decision rendered by a Visa Officer at the High Commission of Canada in Ghana [Officer] dismissing his application for a work permit from outside of Canada. The Officer found the applicant inadmissible for misrepresentation. As a result, the applicant is inadmissible to Canada for a five year period (paragraph 40(2)(a) and subsection 40(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act]). (See Decision)

    Oct 19, 2018 10:07 AM

  • Saatchi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1037

    The Applicant, Mr. Adel Saatchi, is a citizen of Iran. He seeks judicial review of a visa officer’s [Officer] decision dated October 23, 2017, refusing his permanent residence application under the Canadian Experience Class. (See Decision)

    Oct 19, 2018 10:07 AM

  • Challenging Technology’s Ability to Produce Reliable Evidence

    Access to Justice (A2J): for our work as lawyers, we don’t know enough about the technology that produces much of the evidence we have to deal with. So how to be educated affordably? This is an outline of three articles that I have recently posted on the SSRN. (Click on each of the three hyperlinked headings below to download a pdf. copy of each.) (See full article)

    Oct 19, 2018 6:06 AM

  • Adekoya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1035

    This is an application for judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c-27 [IRPA] against a decision of an immigration officer [the Officer] from Case Processing Centre Mississauga, dated April 10, 2018, concluding that the Applicant is not an eligible sponsor because she did not meet the minimum necessary income [MNI] requirement as per subparagraph 133(1)(j)(i)(B) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR]. (See Decision)

    Oct 18, 2018 10:08 AM

  • Kwan v. Amex Bank of Canada - 2018 FCA 189

    Mary Kwan has appealed the judgment of Justice Southcott (2017 FC 1053). He dismissed her application for judicial review of the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). The CHRC dismissed, under section 44 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 (CHRA), the complaint that she had filed under the CHRA. Although the decision letter from the CHRC is not dated, there is no dispute that the date of the letter is March 23, 2017. (See Decision)

    Oct 18, 2018 10:08 AM

  • Yeager v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2018 FCA 187

    The appellant, Dr. Matthew G. Yeager, appeals from a decision of the Federal Court (2017 FC 577 per Gleeson J.), denying his application for judicial review of a decision by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) not to allow him to attend an event held in various federal prisons in Ontario during the week of June 20, 2016. (See Decision)

    Oct 18, 2018 10:08 AM

  • Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1014

    On August 14, 2018, Madam Justice Roussel made an order that IMM‑576‑18 and IMM‑1309‑18 were to be heard at the same time. The relevant facts are the same in both applications for judicial review, and the Applicant relies on similar arguments in both applications. These reasons will apply to and be filed in both files, however a separate order will be made for each file. (See Decision)

    Oct 18, 2018 10:08 AM

  • Vanegas v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2018 FC 1011

    Mr. Luis Angel Vanegas and Ms. Yajhana Paola Ponce Fula, a couple of Colombian citizens, are challenging an immigration officer’s decision to reject their pre-removal risk assessment application. The officer concluded that they would not be exposed to a risk of persecution, torture, a threat to their lives, or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if they were removed to Colombia. (See Decision)

    Oct 18, 2018 10:08 AM

  • Women in LegalTech

    At this year’s ILTACON (great conference, as always!), I popped by a hospitality suite to let them know my firm had just sent out a vendor brief for some consulting services. ILTACON was in full swing, and the brief had gone to a generic email address. I thought I’d make a personal visit to ensure they knew about it. (See full article)

    Oct 18, 2018 6:06 AM

  • C.D. Howe Institute Commentary

    Issue number #518 (August 2018) of publication C.D. Howe Institute Commentary is now available

    Oct 17, 2018 10:18 PM

  • C.D. Howe Institute Commentary

    Issue number #518 (August 2018) of publication C.D. Howe Institute Commentary is now available

    Oct 17, 2018 6:33 PM

  • Forde v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) - 2018 FC 1029

    One of the important functions of this Court is to ensure that the exercise of discretion by members of the executive branch of the federal government is within the scope that has been authorized by Parliament. The classic situation in which the Court is called upon to perform this role is when someone in the executive branch has taken, or is proposing to take, a course of action that is alleged to be beyond the scope of the discretion granted by Parliament. A second type of situation is when one or more members of the public maintain that a decision-maker in the executive branch has arbitrarily excluded from consideration something that was within the scope of that person’s discretion. (See Decision)

    Oct 17, 2018 10:08 AM

  • Liu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1027

    The applicants, Mr. Liu and Ms. Xie, are husband and wife and citizens of China. On arriving in Canada in 2012, they initiated a claim for protection on the grounds that they faced a risk of persecution resulting from their pursuit of Falun Gong. The Refugee Protection Division [RPD] refused the claim, finding they were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The applicants had no right to appeal the RPD decision to the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD]. (See Decision)

    Oct 17, 2018 10:08 AM

  • Van Hoffen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1023

    Debbie Cecilia Van Hoffen [the Principal Applicant] and her minor daughter, Ashleigh Cecilia Goncalves [Ashleigh] [together the Applicants] have brought this application for judicial review of decisions dated December 15, 2017 [the Decisions] made by an officer in the Visa Section of the High Commission of Canada, Pretoria, South Africa [the Visa Officer] refusing to grant the Applicants temporary resident visas. This application is brought pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. (See Decision)

    Oct 17, 2018 10:08 AM

  • Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1015

    On August 14, 2018, Madam Justice Roussel made an order that IMM‑576‑18 and IMM‑1309‑18 were to be heard at the same time. The relevant facts are the same in both applications for judicial review, and the Applicant relies on similar arguments in both applications. These reasons will apply to and be filed in both files, however a separate order will be made for each file. (See Decision)

    Oct 17, 2018 10:08 AM

  • Tamayo Valencia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1013

    The applicants are citizens of Colombia. They report that in 2009, Ms. Angie Carolina Tamayo Valencia’s [Angie] sister testified against a member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia [FARC]. The FARC member was allegedly involved in an attack on police in 2002, in which Angie’s sister’s husband was murdered. The sister’s testimony then led to the arrest of a FARC commander. As a result, Angie has received threats from members of the FARC and asserts that she, her husband, Mr. Alexander Valderrama Montano, and their son, Luis Fernando Valderrama Tamayo, are at risk. Angie’s sister has been recognized as a Convention refugee and is residing in Canada. (See Decision)

    Oct 17, 2018 10:08 AM

  • Aseervatham v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1006

    The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board rendered on January 17, 2018, denying the Applicant’s refugee protection claim [Decision] after determining that he is not a Convention refugee or person in need of protection, pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. (See Decision)

    Oct 17, 2018 10:08 AM

  • Animodi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 999

    This is an application for judicial review by the Applicants Emmanuel Oneson Animodi [male Applicant] and Kemmery Maria Animodi [female Applicant], challenging the decision of a Senior Decision-maker [Officer] at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] dated January 23, 2018 [Decision] denying their application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds, pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. This is the third time that the Applicants have applied for such relief and the third time it has been denied. (See Decision)

    Oct 17, 2018 10:08 AM

  • Asiri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1025

    The Applicant, Sameer Mousa Asiri, is a 29-year-old citizen of Saudi Arabia who first came to Canada in 2007 on a study visa. A few months after his arrival in Canada, he initiated a refugee claim after his mother informed him that the unmarried woman with whom he had a sexual relationship in Saudi Arabia had disclosed the relationship to her family, who then reported it to the police. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected his claim in May 2010. Subsequently, the Applicant’s application for a pre-removal risk assessment [PRRA] was rejected in March 2011 and the Applicant was deported to Saudi Arabia in April 2011. (See Decision)

    Oct 16, 2018 10:09 AM

  • Smith v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1020

    Mr. Smith is a citizen of Bermuda who was denied an electronic Travel Authorization (eTA) by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) because he responded “no” to a question in the on-line application form when he should have responded “yes”. Despite his claim that it was an honest mistake, he was found inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation pursuant to s. 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. This decision has unfortunate consequences for Mr. Smith who is the father of Canadian-born triplets; however, there are no grounds for this Court to intervene in this decision. (See Decision)

    Oct 16, 2018 10:09 AM

  • Chokr v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) - 2018 FC 1022

    This is an application under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], for judicial review of the decision of a Senior Immigration Officer [Officer] of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, dated August 24, 2017 [Decision], which refused Mr. Chokr’s application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds. (See Decision)

    Oct 16, 2018 10:09 AM

  • Pooya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - 2018 FC 1019

    The Applicant seeks judicial review of the January 30, 2018 decision [Decision] of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD, Board] under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] rejecting his claim for Convention refugee or protected status. I will allow this application for the reasons that follow. (See Decision)

    Oct 16, 2018 10:09 AM

  • Temate v. Canada (Attorney General) - 2018 FC 1004

    On May 4, 2016, the applicant, Cyrille Raoul Temate, lodged a complaint against the Public Health Agency of Canada (“Agency”) with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“Commission”). He claims to have been the victim of employment discrimination because of his race, colour and national or ethnic origin, contrary to section 7 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 (“CHRA”). He notably reproaches the Agency for transferring a third party to a management position following the withdrawal of the selected candidate when he was the only candidate in the established pool following the internal appointment process. (See Decision)

    Oct 16, 2018 10:08 AM

  • Barejo Holdings ULC v. The Queen - 2018 TCC 200

    The parties have jointly referred a further question to the Court pursuant to Rule 58, which question is a follow-up question to the Rule 58 question determined in Barejo Holdings ULC v. Her Majesty the Queen 2015 TCC 274 (“Barejo 2015”). (See Decision)

    Oct 16, 2018 10:08 AM