Case Law

Latest documents

  • Alabi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 475

    [1] The Applicants seek judicial review of a decision by a Senior Immigration Officer (“Officer”) dated February 2, 2023, denying the Applicants’ Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA”) application, pursuant to section 112 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (“IRPA”). The Officer was not satisfied that the Applicants would be subject to a risk to their lives, or a risk of persecution, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to Nigeria.

  • T.C.S.T. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 473

    [1] The Applicant, T.C.S.T (the “Applicant”), is seeking a Judicial Review in respect of a decision dated on November 21, 2022, rendered by the Investigator PRD of the Passport Entitlement and Investigations Division Domestic Network [PEID], refusing to issue a passport in the Applicant’s name (the “Decision”). Pursuant to an earlier confidentiality order of this Court on December 19, 2023, the Applicant is only referred to by his initials.

  • Nyam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 469

    [1] The applicant claims to be Nyamusa Jessy Nyam, a 61-year-old citizen of the Republic of Cameroon. She sought refugee protection in Canada on the basis of her fear of persecution as a supporter of the Anglophone resistance movement in Cameroon.

  • Molla v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 459

    [1] The applicant, Mohammad Shah Jahan Molla, seeks judicial review of a visa officer’s decision that refused his application for permanent residence. The officer found Mr. Molla is inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] for committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence under sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, SC 2000, c 24. Specifically, the officer found there were reasonable grounds to believe Mr. Molla was complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity that were perpetrated by the Bangladesh army in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) region during his service as an active member of the army deployed to the CHT region.

  • Ali v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2024 FC 466

    [1] This is a judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board, dated March 10, 2023 [Decision], allowing the Minister’s application to vacate the Applicant’s Convention refugee protection pursuant to section 109 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].

  • Canada (National Revenue) v. Ghermezian, 2024 FC 463

    [1] These proceedings involve six applications by the Minister of National Revenue [the Minister], seeking compliance orders under s 231.7 of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp) [the Act]. The Respondents are five individuals, all members of the Ghermezian extended family, and a related corporation, Gherfam Equities Inc. Each of the Minister’s applications seeks to compel the relevant Respondent to provide documents and/or information previously sought by the Minister under section 231.1 and/or section 231.2 of the Act.

  • McDowell v. A Drip of Honey, 2024 FC 453

    [1] The Plaintiff brings an ex parte motion in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [the Rules], seeking an order, pursuant to Rule 210(1), for default judgment against the Defendant, A Drip of Honey.

  • Hudson v. Canada, 2024 FCA 62

    [1] In the present appeal from a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada, the appellant moves for an Order that:

  • Mirzayev v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 449

    [1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division that dismissed his refugee claim because he had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (“IFA”).

  • Lozano Orjuela v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 450

    [1] The hearing in this matter was held on March 20, 2024. The Applicant did not attend, despite efforts by the Registry to contact him both by email and telephone. The Applicant’s counsel was also previously granted an Order to be removed from the file, because of his inability to communicate with his client.

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