Case Law / page 2

Latest documents

• Hud v. Canada, 2024 FCA 82

  [1] The appellant, Lorence Hud, appeals a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada issued on October 27, 2023 in Tax Court File 2023-745(IT)I, for oral reasons delivered on October 24, 2023. The Tax Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal of the Minister of National Revenue’s assessments of his 2017, 2018, and 2019 taxation years.

• Chrono Aviation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 635

  [1] The Minister of Transport made the decision to prohibit the take-offs and landings of Boeing 737-200 aircraft at night at the Saint-Hubert Airport. Chrono Aviation, which conducts such take-offs and landings on a regular basis, is seeking judicial review of that decision and a stay of its coming into force until this Court rules on the merits of the case.

• Veerasingam v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 639

  [1] Mr. Veerasingam [the Applicant] seeks to set aside a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] allowing an application by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness [the Minister] pursuant to subsection 108(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act] for the cessation of the refugee protection granted to him. For the reasons that follow, this application will be dismissed.

• Zhao v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 645

  [1] The applicant, Hong Cheng Zhao [the Applicant], is a Chinese citizen who applied for permanent residence in Canada. An Officer of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [the Officer] found the applicant inadmissible to Canada [the Decision]. The Officer’s Decision was based on the Applicant’s educational training at a Chinese military university and his membership in a unit of the People’s Liberation Army that specializes in communications and signals intelligence. The Officer concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the Applicant had been involved in espionage that was either against Canada or contrary to Canada’s interests.

• Anttal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 643

  [1] The Applicant, a citizen of India, seeks judicial review of a decision made by an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada officer [Officer] on November 4, 2022, refusing her application for a spousal open work permit and finding that she was inadmissible to Canada in accordance with paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] for misrepresenting or withholding material facts relating to a relevant matter that induced or could induce an error in the administration of the IRPA. Specifically, the Applicant failed to disclose that she had received three prior refusals for Canadian study permits.

• Ajarmah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 646

  [1] Deya Abdullah Amro Ajarmah asks the Court to set aside the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada [IRB] dismissing his claim for refugee protection. Mr. Ajarmah contends the RAD erred in refusing to accept additional documents on his appeal and in upholding the adverse credibility findings of the IRB’s Refugee Protection Division [RPD].

• R. v. Edwards, 2024 SCC 15

  [1]                              People from all walks of life who face criminal prosecution under Canadian law can draw comfort from the fact that they have a constitutional right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. The jurisprudence of this Court has been unwavering in recognizing that the guarantee of judicial independence provided by s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to persons in the Canadian Armed Forces who are tried before military courts martial. Adapted to the military context, the guarantee applies with the same vigour before a court martial as it does before a civilian court of criminal jurisdiction.

• Mahdavi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 629

  [1] The Applicant, Abdollah Mahdavi [the Applicant], is a 45 year old citizen of Iran who applied for a study permit to pursue his Masters in Business Administration [MBA] at Trinity Western University [TWU]. The Visa Officer [the Officer] who rejected his application [the Decision] did so on the basis that the Applicant had not satisfied him that the Applicant would leave Canada at the end of his stay because the purpose of his visit is not consistent with a temporary stay.

• Armendariz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 625

  [1] The Applicant, Erik Hernandez Armendariz, is a citizen of Mexico, who fled to Canada to claim refugee status because he feared corrupt federal and state police as well as drug cartels. He is a lawyer, who served for a time as Municipal Police Commander in his home city. He refused to cooperate with a corrupt police official, and says he fled Mexico because he feared retaliation.

• Warsame v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 630

  [1] Mr. Mohamud Dini Warsame [Applicant] claims to be a citizen of Somalia who fears persecution at the hands of Al-Shabaab. The Applicant seeks a judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] decision dated December 22, 2022 dismissing his refugee claim on the ground of identity [Decision].