in Case Law › Federal Court
in vLex Canada

35566 results for Case Law › Federal Court

  • vLex Rating
  • Zhu v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 848

    [1]  Recognizing that the Applicant is without contradiction, definitely inadmissible to Canada for serious criminality, nevertheless, the Court orders the matter adjourned until the Applicant is able to fly without endangering the traveling public due to testing positive to tuberculosis.

  • Crudu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 834

    [1]  This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [the RPD] dated October 30, 2018, which dismissed the Applicants’ application to have the RPD reopen their claims for refugee protection.

  • Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ibragimov, 2019 FC 830

    [1]  Mr. Ibragimov, the respondent, is a citizen of Uzbekistan who entered Canada in May 2015. He initiated a refugee claim in December 2015, fearing persecution on the basis of political opinion. In May 2017, the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] denied his claim on the basis of credibility. The RPD further found there was insufficient evidence to support a sur place claim.

  • Talukder v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2019 FC 833

    [1]  The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division dated July 26, 2018, which was an appeal from a decision of the Refugee Protection Division dated August 21, 2017 holding the Applicant was not entitled to refugee protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. The appeal was dismissed by the RAD.

  • Jurado Barillas v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 825

    [1]  The Applicants are a husband [the Principal Applicant] and wife, with two minor children. They are citizens of El Salvador. They came to Canada in January of 2018 and claimed refugee protection, fearing persecution at the hands of an international criminal organization.

  • Luo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 823

    [1]  This is an application for judicial review of a September 19, 2018 decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], denying the Applicants’ refugee claims, finding that they are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection, pursuant to ss 96 and 97, respectively, of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].

  • Abdulrahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 821

    [1]  This is an application for judicial review under section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [IRPA] which seeks to set aside the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration Refugee Board refusing the appeal of the Applicant for refugee protection under section 110 of IRPA, which decision was rendered on October 12, 2018.

  • Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation v. Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation, 2019 FC 813

    [1]  Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation [OLG] seeks judicial review of a decision of the First Nations Tax Commission [the Commission], which approved a law made by the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation [the First Nation] imposing a fee for the sewer and waste water treatment services for a casino operated by OLG. In a nutshell, OLG argues that the fee imposed lacks a nexus...

  • De Sousa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 818

    [1]  The three applicants in this case constitute a young family that came to Canada in 2012. They gained access to Canada through visitor visas. However, their intention was quite different from being merely visitors. The record shows that the principal applicant, Joao Henrique Silveira De Sousa, established in June 2012 his own roofing enterprise, two months after he had arrived in this...

  • Adnan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 819

    [1]  This is a judicial review application made pursuant to Section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 [the Act] concerning a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of October 12, 2018. The decision under review is with respect to an appeal from a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] (November 30, 2016). The decision under review found...

  • Subramaniam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 808

    [1]  Mr. Rajesvaran Subramaniam (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision made by the Backlog Reduction Office Manager (the “Manager”), refusing to process his application for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (“H&C”) grounds, pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”).

  • Jim Shot Both Sides v. Canada, 2019 FC 789
  • Kooner v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 806

    [1]  This is an application for judicial review brought under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] for a decision rendered by the Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration Division [ID] regarding the inadmissibility of the Applicant under paragraph 36(1)(a) of the IRPA.

  • Ghirme v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 805

    [1]  In July 2017, the Applicant Tekle Kefle Ghirme, a citizen of Eritrea, filed a refugee claim.  After interviewing the Applicant, an Enforcement Officer (the “Officer”) with the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) prepared a report under section 44(1) of the Immigration and Refugee and Protection Act, SC 2001 c 27 (“IRPA”) finding that the Applicant is inadmissible to Canada under s. 3

  • Rahman v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 807

    [1]  The Applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, seeks judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division (ID) Officer of the Immigration and Refugee Board finding him inadmissible to Canada on security grounds. For the reasons that follow this judicial review is dismissed as the Officer undertook the proper analysis, based his findings on the evidence, and made a reasonable decision....

  • Inbarooban v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 802

    [1]  This is an application under subsection 72 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c. 27 [the IRPA] for judicial review of a decision [the Decision] by a Senior Immigration Officer [the Officer] dated June 11, 2018, in which the Officer dismissed the Applicant’s Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] application. For the reasons set out below, I dismiss the application...

  • Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 734

    [1]  The applicant, Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. [Alexion], developed, manufactures, and markets the drug Soliris. It is used to treat two rare and life-threatening blood-related disorders and was initially approved by Health Canada in January 2009.

  • Shaka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 798

    [1]  On August 15, 2017, the applicant and his brother presented themselves at the Cornwall, Ontario Port of Entry.  Both are citizens of Burundi.  Both had been in the United States on student visas.  Both said they were now seeking refugee protection in Canada.  Their grounds for seeking protection were essentially the same.  From that point on, however, their respective claims for...

  • Williams v. Payette, 2019 FC 800

    [1]  By Statement of Claim issued on June 22, 2018, Minister David Williams (the “Plaintiff”) commenced an action against the following individuals, purportedly in their “private capacities”:

  • Houle v. Swan River First Nation, 2019 FC 803

    [1]  In his judicial review application Robert Houle, a member of Swan River First Nation (SRFN), claims that the residency requirement in the Swan River First Nation (SRFN) Election Code contravenes section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter).  On May 3, 2019 the SRFN Electoral Officer refused to allow him to stand for office for a Council position because he does...

  • Jean v. Swan River First Nation, 2019 FC 804

    [1]  Shawna Jean brings this Motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the Swan River First Nation (SRFN) from holding a General Election for Chief and Council on June 14, 2019 until the underlying judicial review is determined.  Ms. Jean is a member of the SRFN and she challenges the decision of the SRFN Electoral Officer of May 3, 2019 refusing to allow her name to stand for...

  • M.N. v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 796

    [1]  The applicant was found to be inadmissible to Canada because of his membership in a political party in Bangladesh that was said to have engaged in terrorism. I am granting his application for judicial review of that decision, because the reasons offered by the decision-maker failed to satisfy the standard of “justification, transparency and intelligibility,” in particular by failing to

  • AIL International Inc. v. Canadian Energy Services L.P., 2019 FC 795

    [1]  This is an appeal under section 56 of the Trade-marks Act, RSC 1985, c T-13 [the Act] by the Applicant, AIL International Inc. [AIL] from a decision by the Registrar of Trade-marks [the Registrar] dated January 16, 2017. The Registrar rejected AIL’s opposition to the registration of the trademark SUPERCORR by the Respondent, Canadian Energy Services L.P. [CES].

  • Thornton v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 792

    [1]  The Applicant, Aisha Thornton, seeks judicial review of a Senior Immigration Officer’s [Officer] decision dated June 28, 2018, dismissing her application for a pre-removal risk assessment [PRRA].

  • Aulakh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 790

    [1]  The Applicant [Ms. Aulakh] seeks judicial review, pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the IRPA], of a decision of an Immigration Officer [the Officer], rendered on July 13, 2018 [the Decision] refusing Ms. Aulakh’s application for permanent residence status on the basis of misrepresentation, thereby barring her from making a...

  • Aux Sable Liquid Products LP v. JL Energy Transportation Inc, 2019 FC 788

    [1]  This decision on costs follows my Judgment and Reasons dated May 6, 2019, found at 2019 FC 581, following a 12 day trial in this matter, which addressed the merits of the action but reserved on the issue of costs. The parties were afforded a brief opportunity to attempt to agree on costs or to file written submissions in support of their respective positions. The parties did not reach...

  • Banda v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 791

    [1]  This is an application for judicial review by the Applicant, Simon Banda [Mr. Banda] of a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission [the Commission] dated June 28, 2017 to dismiss his complaint [the Decision] pursuant to subparagraph 44(3)(b)(i) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC 1985, c H-6 [the CHRA] because, “having regard to all the circumstances of the complaint, an...

  • Li v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2019 FC 797

    [1]  The Applicant, Ms. Xue Li, seeks judicial review of the Immigration Appeal Division’s [IAD] decision to dismiss her applications for (1) a remedy for alleged abuse of process arising from conduct of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness [Minister] in prosecuting Ms. Li’s admissibility case, and (2) disclosure of certain documents pertaining to her abuse of process...

  • Carter v. Canada (Privacy Commissioner), 2019 FC 783

    [1]  Mr. Carter brings this application to review a decision of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada [the Commissioner] pursuant to section 41 of the Privacy Act, RSC 1985, c P-21, and Rule 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985 c F-7.

  • Worku v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 784

    [1]  The Applicant is a national of Ethiopia who seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dated September 5, 2018, which upheld the denial of his refugee claim by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).  This is the second reconsideration of the Applicant’s appeal from the RPD decision. A judicial review of the first RAD decision was granted by this Court in...

  • Free signup to view additional results