Case Law

Sources in this library

• Canadian Caselaw
• Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal of Ontario

Latest documents

• Maleki v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 590

  [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD], dated January 26, 2023 [the Decision], in which the RAD upheld the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] finding that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.

• Eli Lilly Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2024 FCA 72

  [1] This is an appeal of a decision by the Federal Court (2022 FC 1398, per Justice Martine St-Louis) that found various claims of Canadian Patent No. 2,226,784 (the 784 Patent) to be invalid for overbreadth and insufficiency. As a result, the Federal Court dismissed actions by the appellants against the respondents alleging infringement of the 784 Patent. The respondents had also argued that the claims in issue were invalid for inutility, but the Federal Court elected not to decide that issue.

• Ho v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 585

  [1] The Applicant, Thanh Phong Ho [Applicant] seeks judicial review of a decision by an immigration officer [officer] dated November 12, 2022, which had refused the application for permanent residence under the Spouse and Common-Law family class category [Decision].

• Shahbazbeygi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 588

  [1] The Applicants seek judicial review of a decision from a visa officer refusing the visitor visa application of Hemat Shahbazbeygi, the Principal Applicant in this matter, pursuant to paragraph 179(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (“IRPR”). The decision was based on the Principal Applicant’s lack of significant family ties outside of Canada and his purpose of visit being inconsistent with a temporary stay.

• Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Yihdego, 2024 FCA 70

  [1] Abel Nahusenay Yihdego was found to be inadmissible to Canada pursuant to paragraphs 34(1)(a) and (f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) for being a member of an organization for which there are reasonable grounds to believe had engaged in espionage. These provisions make permanent residents and foreign nationals inadmissible to Canada on security grounds if they are members of an organization for which there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in espionage “against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s interests”.

• Rahman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 582

  [1] This is the judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] confirming the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] that Mr. Sabbir Rahman [Applicant] is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

• Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, 2024 FCA 69

  [1] In accordance with paragraphs 34(1)(a) and (f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA), permanent residents and foreign nationals are inadmissible to Canada on security grounds if they are members of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in espionage “against Canada or that is contrary to Canada’s interests”.

• Shot Both Sides v. Canada, 2024 SCC 12

  [1]                             Treaties between the Crown and Indigenous peoples are fundamental to Canada’s history and constitutional landscape. The promises and obligations enshrined in these fundamental agreements reflect a lasting commitment to maintaining a just relationship between the Crown and Indigenous peoples and were intended to be honoured by the Crown “so long as the sun rises and the river flows” (Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 2, Restructuring the Relationship (1996), at pp. 18-19, citing R. v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, [1982] 2 All E.R. 118 (C.A.), at p. 124, per Lord Denning).

• Tapambwa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 577

  [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Delegate] dated November 15, 2022 [Decision], refusing the Applicants’ application for Canadian citizenship pursuant to subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29 [Act].

• Jahanian v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 581

  [1] Nanzanin Jahanian, a citizen of Iran, applied for a study permit after Université Laval accepted her into a Master of Arts program specializing in educational technology. Her husband, Alireza Haghtalab, wished to accompany her to Canada so he applied for an open work permit. Both applications were refused by a visa officer with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) because the officer was not satisfied that they would leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay.