Sources in this library
- Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (57442)
- Supreme Court of British Columbia (51037)
- Federal Court (35348)
- Supreme Court of Canada (25954)
- Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (24554)
- Ontario Court of Appeal (21203)
- Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan (17030)
- Court of Appeal of British Columbia (16367)
- Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (14720)
- Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (12560)
- Fawcett v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 87
 The appellant, Captain Kimberly Y. Fawcett, is a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. On a February morning in 2006, Captain Fawcett received permission from her immediate supervisor to be late for work so that she could take her son to daycare. This task ordinarily fell to her husband, also a member of the Forces. However, her husband was called to training early that morning in preparation for imminent deployment. Captain Fawcett advised her supervisor that she was executing her “family care plan,” a plan for attending to family care needs in the event of deployment. Unfortunately, while driving to daycare, Captain Fawcett was involved in a tragic motor vehicle accident. Her son was killed, and she suffered severe injuries that necessitated among other things the amputation of a leg above the knee.
- R. v. Mills, 2019 SCC 22
 This appeal presents two issues: (1) whether the investigative technique employed by an undercover police officer amounted to a search or seizure of the appellant Sean Patrick Mills’ online communications under s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ; and, (2) whether police intercepted a private communication pursuant to s. 184.2 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , absent prior judicial authorization.
- Kayode v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 495
 Oluwaseyi Kayode, the applicant, is a citizen of Nigeria. In March 2015 she obtained a visa for travel to the United States that was valid for two years. When she left Nigeria for the United States at the end of November 2015, the applicant was just over one month pregnant. After staying in the United States for a little over four months, the applicant entered Canada on April 4, 2016. She submitted a claim for refugee protection a short time later. The applicant said she was at risk if she returned to Nigeria because her ex-boyfriend (the father of her child) and his family would force her and the child to undergo certain rituals to which she objected on religious grounds and which could harm her child. As well, her ex-boyfriend and his family had threatened to harm her because of her refusal to return from the United States to undergo these rituals.
- Semykin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 496
 The Applicants seek judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] decision confirming the finding of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] that the Applicants were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection due to an internal flight alternative [IFA] in Moscow. As that conclusion was reasonable, and as no other grounds permit this Court to intervene, this judicial review will be dismissed.
- Communities and Coal Society v. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, 2019 FCA 94
 The appellants have appealed from a judgment of the Federal Court issued by Justice O’Reilly (the judge) dated January 15, 2018, which dismissed their application for judicial review of two decisions of the respondent Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (the Port Authority) approving a proposal from the other respondent, Fraser Surrey Docks Limited Partnership (FSD), to build a coal transfer facility at a marine terminal in Surrey, British Columbia (FSD Project). The judge found that these decisions were made fairly and lawfully, and were untainted by a reasonable apprehension of bias.
- Daniels v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 469
 The Applicant, Mr. Larry Kunle Daniels, seeks judicial review of a decision of an IRCC immigration officer (Officer) refusing his application for permanent residence under the Spouse and Common Law Partner class on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (IRPA). The Officer was not satisfied that there were sufficient H&C grounds to overcome the Applicant’s inadmissibility for serious criminality (paragraph 36(1)(b) of the IRPA).
- Arocha v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 468
 This is an application for judicial review of a decision rendered by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] which held that the Applicants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection, arising from their fear of persecution based on political opinion. The RAD reasonably found that a central incident which led the Applicants to flee the country was not persecutory, and that they would not be subject to risk from the state agents responsible for that incident. However, the RAD failed to consider whether there was a serious possibility that the Applicants would suffer future persecution as a result of their political opinion, or perceived political opinion. For that reason, the judicial review will be granted.
- Jeffrey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 467
 Mr. Miles Jeffrey (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (the “Board”) sitting as an Entitlement Appeal Panel, pursuant to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, S.C. 1995, C. 18 (the “VRAB Act”).
- Canada (Attorney General) v. Heffel Gallery LTD., 2019 FCA 82
 In 1892, the French-born impressionist painter, Gustave Caillebotte, produced “Iris bleus, jardin du Petit Gennevilliers” (Iris bleus or the Painting), an oil on canvas, 21¾” x 18¼”. Little did he know that some 127 years later, Iris Bleus would be at the heart of the present appeal.
- Baran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 463
 This is an application for judicial review by Alpay Baran [the “Applicant”] in respect of the decision [“Decision”] of an officer with the Visa Section of the Canadian Embassy in Ankara, Turkey [“Officer”] that refused the Applicant’s work permit application.