in Case Law › Federal Court
in vLex Canada

36904 results for Case Law › Federal Court

  • vLex Rating
  • La Rose v. Canada, 2020 FC 1008

    [1]  This is a motion to strike the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim without leave to amend. This motion is brought by the Defendants, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and the Attorney General of Canada, on the basis that the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, pursuant to Rule 221 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.

  • Sanusi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1004

    [1]  This is a judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Refugee Appeal Division [RAD], confirming the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], which dismissed the Applicants’ claims for refugee protection under section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].

  • Fabunmi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 1009

    [1]  The Applicant, Ms. Biola Falilat Fabunmi and her daughter fear persecution and harm on the basis of their sexual orientations; they are citizens of Nigeria who claim they are bisexual and that they had same-sex relationships in Nigeria. They also claim that in-laws, community vigilantes and police are searching for them in Nigeria. The Refugee Appeal Division [RAD], like the Refugee...

  • Adair v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 999

    [1]  The Applicant, Ms. Karen Nichole Primus, is a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines [SVG] and the mother of two Canadian born children who are 17 and 15 years old. She applied for a permanent resident visa as a member of the family class sponsored by her aunt, Ms. Rosmond Adair. The Visa Officer found that Ms. Primus was not a member of Ms. Adair’s family class and that an...

  • Cyr v. Batchewana First Nation, 2020 FC 1001

    [1]  The applicant seeks an extension of time and leave to file an application for judicial review, under subsection 18.1(2) of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7. This motion was decided in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, on the basis of the evidence and written submissions filed by the parties.

  • Flatwork Technologies, LLC (Powerblanket) v. Brierley, 2020 FC 997

    [1]  The Plaintiff has brought a motion for summary judgment in respect of its patent impeachment action under section 60(1) of the Patent Act, RSC 1985, c P-4 [the “Act” or “Patent Act”]. The Plaintiff’s position is that Canadian Patent No. 2,383,341 [the ‘341 Patent] which describes an electric heating wrap for use on articulated hydraulic booms should be declared invalid pursuant to...

  • Smith v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 996

    [1]  The two Applicants, Brian and Michelle Smith [the Smiths] are spouses and reside in Kelowna, British Columbia. These judicial reviews concern their applications for benefits [OAS benefits] under the Old Age Security Act, RSC 1985, c O-9 [OAS Act] that were applied for on March 29, 2017 by Brian Smith. They seek judicial review of a single decision dated June 24, 2019 [Decision], by the

  • Saka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 991

    [1]  This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated July 11, 2019 [the Decision], in which the Panel Member [the Member] refused the Nigerian Applicant’s claim for refugee protection on the basis that his claim to fear persecution as a bisexual man was not credible. The Applicant had appealed the decision of the Refugee Protection...

  • M.S. v Canada, 2020 FC 982

    [1]  The applicant seeks authorization to institute a class action on behalf of parents who were allegedly deprived of the Canada Child Benefit, the GST/HST credit and other similar benefits. In short, the applicant argues that the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] should not terminate these benefits when a child is the subject of a placement under child protection legislation but is still...

  • Hughes v. Canada (Human Rights Commission), 2020 FC 986

    [1]  These reasons concern an appeal made in writing under Rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106. The applicant, Mr Hughes, asks the Court to vary or set aside in part an Order of Prothonotary Ring dated November 28, 2019 (the “Order”). In that Order, the Prothonotary dismissed a show-cause contempt motion against Transport Canada and four individual public servants including the...

  • Juan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 988

    [1]  The Applicant, Vrenalyn Juan, is a Filipino citizen who has lived outside of her country of origin for many years. Between 2004 and 2012, she worked as a caregiver in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Hong Kong. The Applicant arrived in Canada on June 22, 2012, on a work permit issued under the Live-in Caregiver Program. The Applicant’s spouse, who has been diagnosed with chronic kidney...

  • Geophysical Service Incorporated v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 984

    [1]  This is an Application for judicial review under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act (RSC 1985, c F-7) [the Federal Courts Act] in respect of the decision made by the Trade Law Bureau of Global Affairs Canada [the Trade Law Bureau] on October 9, 2019, allegedly refusing to remove members of the team working for, and with, the Trade Law Bureau as counsel for Her Majesty the Queen [the

  • Khandaker v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 985

    [1]  The applicant, Mr M.H.B. Khandaker, applied for permanent residence in Canada. His spouse would like to sponsor him, but she is ineligible to do so under a regulation. Mr Khandaker therefore requested an exemption from the regulation on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

  • Mirzaee v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 972

    [1]  The applicant, Ms. Mohadese Mirzaee, is a citizen of Afghanistan who is now 22 years old. Ms. Mirzaee claimed refugee protection when she arrived in Canada in August 2016, at the age of 18. At the time, she alleged that she feared persecution by the Taliban because of her gender and her perceived political opinion related to Western associations, as well as her mother’s employment with

  • Senadheerage v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 968

    [1]  Mr. Senadheerage seeks judicial review of the dismissal of his claim for asylum. I am granting his application, for two inter-related reasons. First, the decision-maker found certain parts of his narrative implausible, without providing a firm basis for this finding. Second, it found that Mr. Senadheerage failed to provide corroborative evidence, without explaining why corroboration...

  • Barbe v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 973

    [1]  The background of the present matter is as follows:

  • Akintola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 971

    [1]  Kolawole Monsur Akintola, his wife Abiola Shakirat Akintola, and two of their minor children apply for judicial review pursuant to section 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].  They are citizens of Nigeria who allege a fear of persecution on the basis that Mr. Akintola is a bisexual man whose sexual orientation was exposed in 2017.  The applicants’

  • Wasylynuk v. Canada (Royal Mounted Police), 2020 FC 962

    [1]  The applicant is a Corporal with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He seeks an order for mandamus and an injunction pending his judicial review application, under ss. 18.2 and 44 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7.

  • Tiben v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 965

    [1]  The principal applicant, Mr. James Ndum Tiben, is a person with refugee status in Canada. He applied for permanent residence in Canada and included his two adopted children, Fabrice Mundu Tiben and Romie Andum Tiben [Dependant Applicants], in the application. In June 2019, an immigration officer [Officer] based in Dakar, Senegal refused the application of the Dependant Applicants on...

  • Burai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 966

    [1]  The applicants, Mr. Gabor Burai and Mrs. Sarolta Forgacs, are a married couple from Hungary and members of the Roma ethnic group. When they arrived in Canada in 2011, they claimed refugee protection based on their fear of discrimination and violence in Hungary due to their Roma ethnicity. In a decision issued in September 2019 [Decision], a panel of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD]

  • Housou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 964

    [1]  The main applicant in this matter, Mr. Kokou Felix Housou, is a citizen of Togo. Mr. Housou fled his country of nationality some 26 years ago, he received refugee status in neighbouring Ghana, and he has been living with his family in Ghana ever since. The four other applicants are Mr. Housou’s dependents, namely his wife and children.

  • Western Transloading Corporation v. Peterson, 2020 FC 967

    [1]  This proceeding is a consolidation of two (2) related applications for judicial review.

  • Hungbeke v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 955

    [1]  Mr. Alphonse Togbe Kumaza Hungbeke, the principal applicant, his wife, Ms. Justina Newland, and their two children, Kossi Akati Kumaza and Albert Akati Kumaza, seek judicial review of the decision rendered on March 28, 2019 by the Visa Section of the High Commission of Canada in Accra, Ghana.

  • Wojcik v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 958

    [1]  The Applicant was denied a security clearance under s 53(1) of the Cannabis Regulations, SOR/2018-144 [Regulations] by the Director General [Director], Controlled Substances and Cannabis Branch, Health Canada [the Decision]. The Applicant asks for judicial review on the grounds of (1) breach of procedural fairness and (2) unreasonableness of the Decision.

  • Vallières v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2020 FC 957

    [1]  The applicant, Steve Vallières, is seeking judicial review of an arbitral award dismissing his complaint of unjust dismissal against his former employer, the Royal Bank of Canada [the Bank]. I am dismissing his application because the adjudicator reasonably found that Mr. Vallières’s dismissal was not unjust. In doing so, he applied the contextual approach mandated by the case law...

  • Gupta v. Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 952

    [1]  The Applicant, Dr. Murlidhar Gupta, seeks judicial review of the August 15, 2019 decision by Natural Resources Canada [NRCan] that adopted an administrative investigation report.

  • Blois v. Onion Lake Cree Nation, 2020 FC 953

    [1]  This is an application for judicial review of a decision by Chief and Council of the Onion Lake Cree Nation [OLCN] terminating the appointment of an appeals tribunal. The appeals tribunal was terminated prior to the completion of its consideration and determination of an appeal of the OLCN election held on June 18, 2018 [Election]. The subject appeal was brought by the Applicant,...

  • Okojie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 948

    [1]  In this application, Amende Violet Okojie asks the Court to set aside a departure order dated July 2, 2019 made under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227. That order was based on a finding that the applicant was a foreign national who was inadmissible under subs. 40.1(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (“IRPA”), which in turn...

  • SSE Holdings, LLC v. Le Chic Shack Inc., 2020 FC 983

    [1]  In 2017, the Plaintiffs, SSE Holdings, LLC and SSE IP, LLC [together, Shake Shack] brought an action for trademark infringement against the Defendant, Le Chic Shack Inc. [Chic Shack]. In 2019, as the matter was progressing towards trial, the parties agreed to enter into a Court-assisted mediation governed by Rules 387 to 389 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [Rules]. A mediation...

  • Akcay v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 950

    [1]  The Applicant, Ali Cansel Akcay, seeks judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision, which confirmed the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision that rejected his claim for refugee status. He argues that the decision is unreasonable because the RAD made numerous errors in its treatment of the evidence and its application of the law. He also argues that he was denied

  • Free signup to view additional results