Sources in this library
- Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (58762)
- Supreme Court of British Columbia (51647)
- Federal Court (35980)
- Supreme Court of Canada (25981)
- Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (24878)
- Ontario Court of Appeal (21465)
- Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan (17131)
- Court of Appeal of British Columbia (16492)
- Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (14799)
- Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (12646)
- R. v. Javanmardi, 2019 SCC 54
 Mitra Javanmardi opened a naturopathic clinic in Quebec in 1985. She has a degree in science from McGill University, a doctorate in naturopathic medicine from the National College of Naturopathic Medicine in Portland, Oregon, and a related diploma which involved 500 hours of further courses. Ms. Javanmardi’s education included classes and clinical training about intravenous injection techniques. She has treated between 4,000 and 5,000 patients at her clinic since it opened and, starting in 1992, has administered nutrients to approximately ten patients per week by way of intravenous injection. Intravenous administration of nutrients by naturopaths is not legal in Quebec but is lawful in most provinces.
- Milad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1409
 The Applicant, Mohamed Farag M.S. Milad, [Mr. Milad] seeks judicial review of the decision of an Immigration Officer [the Officer] refusing his application for permanent residence in Canada based on an exemption from the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act] on humanitarian and compassionate grounds [H&C] pursuant to section 25 of the Act.
- Oladele v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1410
 Mr. Demilade Kayode Oladele (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision made by a Delegate (the “Delegate”) of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) refusing his application for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (“H&C”) grounds pursuant to subsection 25 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001, c.27 (the “Act”).
- R. v. Rafilovich, 2019 SCC 51
 Do the proceeds of crime provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (“Code ”), require courts to give with one hand, only to take away with the other? The appellant, Yulik Rafilovich, applied for and was returned funds that the state had initially seized from him as potential proceeds of crime, because he needed the funds to pay for his legal defence to charges related to drug trafficking. After he pled guilty, the Crown asked the sentencing judge to impose a fine on Mr. Rafilovich under the forfeiture provisions of the Code , on the basis that by using his returned funds for his defence, he had thereby benefitted from the proceeds of crime. In my view, Parliament did not intend these provisions to operate in such an inconsistent manner.
- Milak v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1400
 This application is for a judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [RPD], dated December 20, 2018, on a redetermination following an earlier decision in 2012. The Member refused the Applicants’ refugee claim [the Decision]. This application is brought pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the IRPA].
- He v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1395
 This judicial review concerns a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] finding the Applicant not to be a refugee or in need of protection. Its decision was based principally on the RAD finding certain documents within the application to be fraudulent.
- Huseynov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1392
 This application judicially reviews a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division, or RAD, confirming the finding of the Refugee Protection Division, or RPD, that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. For the following reasons, I am dismissing the application.
- Maclean v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 277
 The applicant, Mr. Randy MacLean, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal, dated October 30, 2017, refusing his application to rescind or amend one or both of two Pension Appeals Board decisions on the basis that the application was made beyond the one-year limitation period established by subsection 66(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, S.C. 2005, c. 34 (the Act).
- Beima v. Canada (National Revenue), 2019 FCA 280
 Mr. Beima appeals the order dated February 15, 2018 of the Federal Court (per McDonald J.) in file T-2047-14. The Federal Court found Mr. Beima in contempt for not complying with a production order under section 231.7 of the Income Tax Act R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp). In an exercise of discretion favourable to Mr. Beima, the Federal Court did not impose any penalty for his contempt.
- Kufsky v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 254
 Michelle Kufsky (the “Appellant”) appeals from a third party assessment issued by the Minister of National Revenue (the “Minister”) pursuant to section 160 of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) (the “Act”) in respect of a tax debt owed by Mon Refuge Décor Inc. (the “Corporation”).