Case Law

Sources in this library

• Canadian Caselaw
• Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario

Latest documents

• Petruska v. IAMAW, 2025 FCA 203

  [1] The applicant, Mr. Petruska, seeks to set aside the decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB or the Board) dated July 19, 2024, dismissing his complaint that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (Union) breached its duty of fair representation under section 37 of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2 (Decision). In his complaint to the Board, the applicant alleged that the Union acted in bad faith, discriminated against him, and failed to adequately represent him with respect to his termination by his employer, Air Canada.

• Deml Investments Limited v. Canada, 2025 FCA 204

  [1] The Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) applied the general anti-avoidance rule (the GAAR) in section 245 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the Act) to deny a capital loss claimed by DEML Investments Limited (DEML) on a sale of an interest in a partnership in 2010. DEML carried back almost all of the net capital loss attributable to this capital loss to its 2007 taxation year to offset a taxable capital gain realized by DEML in that taxation year. A capital loss is realized when a capital property is sold and the adjusted cost base (ACB) of that property and any outlays and expenses incurred to sell that property exceed the proceeds of disposition for that property (paragraph 40(1)(b) of the Act). There is no indication that any amount was claimed for any outlays or expenses that were incurred to sell the partnership interest that resulted in the capital loss in issue. As well, there is no dispute that the proceeds of disposition for that interest were $6,700,000.

• Ramirez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1806

  [1] Claudia Iveth Lopez Ramirez Luisa [the Principal Applicant or PA], and the co-Applicants, Luisa Fernanda Hurtado Lopez, Diego Xavier Hurtado Lopez, Juan Leopoldo Hurtado Lopez [collectively, the Applicants], seek judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] finding that they are not in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The Applicants claim the decision is unreasonable because the RAD failed to consider the Principal Applicant’s ex-husband’s [XH] past pattern of abuse and erred in its assessment of the family’s financial independence to conclude that they did not face a forward-looking risk of persecution in Mexico.

• Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1802

  [1] The Applicant, Mr. Seraj Essaadi El Ferjani Ahmed, is a citizen of Libya. Mr. Ahmed seeks judicial review of the May 2, 2024 decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] confirming the refusal of his refugee claim by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], for other reasons. The RAD found that Mr. Ahmed had not established either a well-founded fear of persecution under section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] or that, on a balance of probabilities, Mr. Ahmed would personally be subjected to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment or a danger of torture upon return to Libya pursuant to section 97 of the IRPA.

• Lopez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1803

  [1] Ms. Juárez is seeking judicial review of the refusal of a study permit. This case was dealt with in writing, on consent of the parties, as part of the Court’s Study Permit Pilot project. I am granting leave. However, I am dismissing the application on the merits, as the visa officer did not disregard evidence concerning Ms. Juárez’s reasons for her proposed studies and did not reach an unreasonable conclusion. My reasons follow.

• Niazai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1801

  [1] The Applicant, Habibullah Niazai [the Principal Applicant] and his dependents [collectively, the Applicants], are citizens of Afghanistan who seek an order in the nature of mandamus directing the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship [the Minister] to process the Principal Applicant’s expression of interest under the “Temporary public policy for the resettlement of Afghan nationals with a significant and/or enduring relationship to Canada” [the Policy].

• Maan v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 1804

  [1] The Applicant, Mehakdeep Singh Maan, seeks judicial review of a Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] decision to issue an exclusion order against him. This matter was heard together with a separate application brought by Mr. Maan related to his sponsored application for permanent residence, which was rejected on the basis that his marriage was entered into primarily for immigration purposes: see Court File Number IMM-13914-24.

• Qasim v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1796

  [1] Veronica Qasim [The Principal Applicant or PA], and the Associate Applicants Dina Qasim, Diana Qasim and Mohammad Qaasim [collectively, the Applicants], seek judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] determining that they are not Convention refugees or 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 claim that the decision is unreasonable because the RAD erred in its assessment of the incompetence of their previous consultant, the admissibility of new evidence, and the assessment of the forward-looking risk of persecution in Romania.

• Patel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1797

  [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision dated July 12, 2024 [the Decision], by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD], dismissing the Applicants’ appeal and confirming the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] to refuse the Applicants’ refugee claims. In the Decision, the RAD concluded the Applicants have a viable internal flight alternative [IFA] within India.

• Duale v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1794

  [1] Mohamed Rashid Ahmed Duale (a.k.a. Mahamed Rashiid Ahmed Duale) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB] finding that he had failed to prove his identity and is therefore neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. Mr. Duale argues that the RAD acted unfairly in coming to this conclusion. As explained below, I agree and will allow his application.