Case Law

Latest documents

  • Jefferson v. Canada, 2022 FCA 81

    [1] The appellant, Allen Jefferson, appeals a decision of the Tax Court of Canada, reported at 2019 TCC 91 (per Paris J.), dismissing his appeal of an assessment under section 160 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.). Section 160 permits the Minister of National Revenue (Minister) to assess a particular person (transferee) for the unpaid income tax debt of another person (tax debtor) if, at the time the tax debt is outstanding, the tax debtor transfers property to the transferee for less than fair market value consideration, and the tax debtor and transferee are not dealing with each other at arm’s length.

  • Canada (Attorney General) v. National Police Federation, 2022 FCA 80

    [1] Labour legislation in all Canadian jurisdictions imposes a freeze on the terms and conditions of employment of bargaining unit employees. The freeze prevents employers from unilaterally altering the terms and conditions following the filing of an application for certification or provision of notice to bargain for the employees’ bargaining unit. The Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act, S.C. 2003, c. 22, s. 2 (the FPSLRA) contains such statutory freeze provisions. One, in section 56, applies after an employer has been advised that an application for certification has been made. This is sometimes called a “certification freeze”. Another, in section 107, applies after notice to bargain has been given. This is sometimes called a “bargaining freeze”.

  • R. v. Brown, 2022 SCC 18

    [1]                              Following a party at which he had consumed alcohol and “magic mushrooms”, Matthew Winston Brown violently attacked Janet Hamnett, a person he did not know and who had done nothing to invite the assault. At the time, Mr. Brown was in what the trial judge described as a “substance intoxication delirium” that was so extreme as to be “akin to automatism” (2020 ABQB 166, 9 Alta. L.R. (7th) 375, at para. 87). While capable of physical movement, he was in a delusional state and had no willed control over his actions. Mr. Brown’s extreme intoxication akin to automatism was brought about by his voluntary ingestion of the magic mushrooms which contained a drug called psilocybin. Mr. Brown was acquitted at trial. The Alberta Court of Appeal set aside that verdict and convicted him of the general intent offence of aggravated assault.

  • R. v. Sullivan, 2022 SCC 19

    [1]                             After having voluntarily taken an overdose of a prescription drug and falling into an impaired state, David Sullivan attacked his mother with a knife and injured her gravely. He was charged with several offences, including aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. In unrelated circumstances, Thomas Chan also fell into an impaired state after he voluntarily ingested “magic mushrooms” containing a drug called psilocybin. Mr. Chan attacked his father with a knife and killed him and seriously injured his father’s partner. He was tried for manslaughter and aggravated assault.

  • Deeproot Green Infrastructure, LLC v. Greenblue Urban North America Inc., 2022 FC 709

    [1] These are the reasons following a contempt hearing, where the Plaintiffs (DeepRoot) allege that the Defendant (GreenBlue) is in contempt of the Court’s Judgment in Deeproot Green Infrastructure, LLC v Greenblue Urban North America Inc, 2021 FC 501 (Judgment).

  • Balakumar v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2022 FC 703

    [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD], dated October 23, 2019, dismissing the Applicant’s appeal and confirming the decision by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], finding the Applicant is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].

  • Sinnette v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 685

    [1] The applicant, Ms. Beverlly Frances Sinnette, is a 67-year-old citizen of Trinidad and Tobago [Trinidad] and has been in Canada without status for 34 years; she first arrived in 1988 and has not returned to Trinidad since. Other than a cousin in Canada, Ms. Sinnette’s family – her three adult sons, two sisters and two brothers, and the families of the one sister and one brother who are married – all live in Trinidad. Ms. Sinnette seeks judicial review of a decision dated April 21, 2021 [Decision], rendered by a senior immigration officer [Officer], that refused her application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds – she was seeking an exemption from the requirement of applying for permanent residence from abroad. The Officer found that the factors submitted by Ms. Sinnette were insufficient to justify an exemption under subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act].

  • Abskhiron v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 683

    [1] The Applicants are a mother and her three minor children. They came to Canada in May 2018 and claimed refugee protection based on their fear of persecution in Sudan and Egypt on the grounds of the principal Applicant having been accused and convicted of proselytizing in Sudan. They now seek judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] refusing their claim.

  • Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 692

    [1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision to refuse his work permit application, made by an Immigration Officer (the “Officer”) in New Delhi. At the end of the hearing of this Application, which took place on May 9, 2022, I granted the judicial review, provided a brief explanation for why, and indicated that written reasons would follow in short order. For the reasons detailed here, I find the decision to be unreasonable and the application is granted.

  • Pandher v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 687

    [1] This is the judicial review of a decision of a visa officer [Visa Officer] with the High Commission of Canada in New Delhi, India, refusing the application of Arshdeep Singh Pandher [Applicant] for a study permit and finding him to be inadmissible due to misrepresentation, pursuant to ss 40(1)(a) and 42(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT