Case Law

Sources in this library

• Canadian Caselaw

Court

Jurisdiction

Latest documents

• Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24

  [1]                              At the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal, the Court allowed the appeal with costs throughout, and reinstated the order of Judge G. Smith of the Provincial Court of British Columbia, dated September 26, 2016, with reasons to follow. These are the reasons for that judgment.

• Chen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 907

  [1]  The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) did not conduct a reasonable analysis of the risk of persecution Mr. Li Hui Chen would face as a practising Pentecostal Christian should he return to China. The RAD undertook only limited substantive analysis of the evidence regarding that issue, and that analysis appeared to consider that harassment and mistreatment could only amount to persecution if it involved arrest and detention. I therefore agree with Mr. Chen that the RAD’s reasons with respect to his sur place claim do not demonstrate a rational chain of analysis and are unreasonable.

• Al Dya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 901

  [1]  Ali Al Dya claims that Hezbollah tried to forcibly recruit him to fight for them in Syria, and seeks refugee protection in Canada. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) found his narrative to be implausible, as it did not accord with the objective evidence about Hezbollah’s recruitment practices in Lebanon, and aspects of his account were inconsistent with the assertion that Hezbollah was interested in forcing him to fight.

• Linklater v. Thunderchild First Nation, 2020 FC 899

  [1]  I am ordering that the by-election to fill the vacant seat for Headman on the Thunderchild First Nation Council be halted while Michael Linklater’s Charter challenge to his removal from that seat is before the Court. Since the by-election is scheduled to begin through advance voting within days, my reasons for this order will be fairly brief. I hope that they adequately explain to the parties, and to the citizens of the Thunderchild First Nation, why I am granting Mr. Linklater’s request to suspend the by-election.

• Waqas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 896

  [1]  Mr. Ali Waqas is a citizen of Pakistan. He appeals the decision of the Refugee Protection Board (RPD) rendered on 6 September 2018, rejecting his claim filed pursuant to section 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

• M.N.R. v. McMahon, 2020 TCC 104

  [1]  The Minister of National Revenue brought an application pursuant to section 174 of the Income Tax Act (the “Application”). Jason Foroglou, Naishadhsinh Bihola, Charlotte Pinate and Daniel McMahon (collectively, the “Named Taxpayers”) were among the taxpayers named in the Application. The Minister subsequently withdrew the Application. The Named Taxpayers are each seeking costs in respect of the Application.

• Nova Chemicals Corporation v. Dow Chemicals Company, 2020 FCA 141

  [1]  Before the Court is an appeal and a cross-appeal from the judgment of the Federal Court in file T-2051-10 (per Fothergill J.): 2017 FC 350, supplementary reasons 2017 FC 637, reasons on costs 2017 FC 759.

• Gladwin Realty Corporation v. Canada, 2020 FCA 142

  [1]  This is an appeal brought by The Gladwin Realty Corporation Inc. (Gladwin or the appellant) from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada (2019 TCC 62) wherein Hogan J. (the Tax Court judge) dismissed the appellant’s appeal from a Notice of determination issued by the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) with respect to its 2008 taxation year. The Notice of determination was issued pursuant to subsection 152(1.11) and the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR) found in section 245 of the Income Tax Act, R.C.S. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the Act).

• Indusol Industrial Control Ltd. v. The Queen, 2020 TCC 103

  [1]  Indusol Industrial Control Ltd. (“Indusol” or the “Appellant”) filed an appeal with this Court in respect of a reassessment, the notice of which is dated July 21, 2014, made under the Income Tax Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.)) (the “Act”) for its 2012 taxation year, being the period from April 1, 2011 to March 31, 2012 (the “2012 taxation year”).

• Hansen v. The Queen, 2020 TCC 102

  [1]  The issues in this appeal arise from the sale of houses by Mr. Hansen and his spouse, Ms. Tanya Weiland (“the Hansens”) during the taxation years 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012. The Hansens sold a house during each of these taxation years. Mr. Hansen claimed the principal residence exemption with respect to the disposition of the houses pursuant to paragraph 40(2)(b) and section 54 of the Income Tax Act (the “Act”) [1] .