Sources in this library

Latest documents

  • Worldspan Marine Inc. v. Sargeant, 2019 FCA 207

    [1]  There are two motions requesting an order to stay the Order of Heneghan J. of the Federal Court dated April 30, 2019 (2019 FC 546) which provided that the proceeds from the sale of the vessel “QE014226C010” are to be paid to Harry Sargeant III (Sargeant).

  • Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tennant and Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, 2019 FCA 206

    [1]  In granting an application for judicial review of a decision made under the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, a judge of the Federal Court declared that Andrew James Fisher-Tennant is a citizen of Canada: Fisher-Tennant v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 151 (Ahmed J.). The application judge declined to certify in his judgment a question of general importance. By paragraph 22.2(d) of the Citizenship Act, no appeal lies to this Court from a judgment of the Federal Court on judicial review with respect to any matter under the Act, absent a certified question.

  • Sport Maska Inc. v. Bauer Hockey Ltd., 2019 FCA 204

    [1]  The appellant appeals from the Federal Court’s judgment in Bauer Hockey Ltd. v. Sport Maska Inc. (doing business as CCM Hockey), 2018 FC 832 (per Locke J. (as he then was)), dismissing the appellant’s appeal from the Prothonotary’s decision reported at 2017 FC 1174 (per Morneau P.). The Prothonotary dismissed the appellant’s motions to dismiss the respondent’s actions for patent and trade-mark infringement by reason of the respondent’s failure to comply with Rule 117 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 following the reorganization of the affairs of the respondent’s predecessor, Bauer Hockey Corp. (old Bauer) under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36 (the CCAA).

  • Guzman de la Cruz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 937

    [1]  Ms. Wendy Raquel Guzman de la Cruz (the “Principal Applicant”) and her mother, Elizabeth de la Cruz Cruz (collectively “the Applicants”) seek judicial review of the decisions of a Senior Immigration Officer (the “Officer”) dated March 12, 2018, denying their applications for permanent residence in Canada on Humanitarian and Compassionate (“H and C”) grounds, made pursuant to subsection 25 (1) of  the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”).

  • Ramos v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 205

    [1]  Mr. Ramos appeals the decision of the Federal Court (per Annis J.) (2018 FC 696) dismissing his application for judicial review of the Minister of Transport’s delegate’s refusal to reconsider the decision to cancel his transportation security clearance on October 6, 2017.

  • Zahw v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 934

    [1] The Court finds that the Immigration Division [ID] failed to conclude if and how the Egyptian military was engaged in an act of force that intended to overthrow a government by force (Shandi (Re), [1991] F.C.J. No. 1319 (QL) [Shandi]). The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada [IRB or Board] has to study the evidence on the record as a whole, in addition to comprehensive, fulsome Country Condition Evidence emanating from the Board. In its reasons, the ID cited the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in Najafi v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2014 FCA 262 [Najafi], indicating that “subversion by force of a government” means “using force with a goal of overthrowing any government”, but that the term “may be distinguished by its specific objective from the broader concept of use of force against the state. It specifically involves using force with the goal of overthrowing the government, either in some part of its territory or in the entire country” (Najafi, above, at para 12). The evidence, as discussed in the ID reasons, was also generalized, not specific to the Applicant’s involvement in the military given the unit in which he worked, and lacked information which caused the ID to fail to assess the goal of the Egyptian military in the 2013 events.

  • Gao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 939

    [1]  This is an application for judicial review of the decision by the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada dated October 11, 2018, which rejected the Applicant’s appeal of an exclusion order. The exclusion order was issued by a Member of the Immigration Division on the basis that the Applicant was inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the IRPA].

  • Demattos v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 935

    [1]  The Applicant, Videshari Kayman Demattos, seeks judicial review of a decision (Decision) of an inland enforcement officer (Officer) of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) refusing her request to defer her removal from Canada to Guyana that had been scheduled for November 16, 2018. This application for judicial review is brought pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA).

  • Rahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 941

    [1]  The Applicant, Mr. K.M. Sarjil Rahman, is a citizen of Bangladesh. He seeks judicial review of the decision (Decision) of a senior immigration officer (Officer) at Citizenship and Immigration Canada to deny his application for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). This application for judicial review is brought pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA).

  • Makavitch v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 940

    [1]  The Applicant, Mr. Makavitch, who is self-represented, applied to join the Canadian Armed Forces [CAF] on October 17, 2017. At that time, he had been employed as a Security Guard with the Commissionaires section of the Department of National Defence since September, 2007.