Case Law / page 3

Latest documents

• Mohammed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 713

  [1] Subhan Mohammed seeks judicial review of the rejection of his refugee claim by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada [IRB]. He argues the process leading to the RAD’s decision was unfair because he was not given an adequate opportunity to present evidence. He therefore asks this Court to consider evidence that was not placed before the RAD or the Refugee Protection Division [RPD]. He also contends that the RAD’s conclusion that he was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection was unreasonable as the RAD ignored relevant evidence regarding conditions for Muslims in India, and made unjustified credibility findings.

• Whaling v. Canada (His Majesty the King), 2024 FC 712

  [1] The Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20 [CCRA] was proclaimed in force in 1992, ushering in what was thought at the time to be a modern, comprehensive framework for corrections and conditional release of offenders. The CCRA completely replaced the old Penitentiary Act and Parole Act, and introduced the concept of Accelerated Parole Review [APR], a more streamlined process for parole review by the Parole Board as compared with regular parole review, for first-time offenders who qualified pursuant to the criteria set out in the CCRA. APR was automatic, meaning that there was no need for the offender to apply for it; conducted on paper, meaning that it took place without a hearing; and based upon less stringent criteria for granting parole (the “no reasonable grounds to believe” test), with no discretion on the part of the Parole Board to decide against releasing the offender. Initially, the APR regime was only available for those eligible for full parole [APR full parole]; however, in July 1997, amendments to the CCRA [1997 Amendments] expanded the regime to include those offenders who were eligible for day parole [APR day parole], with an earlier parole eligibility date―one sixth of the sentence or six months, whichever was longer.

• Mahindehghan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 708

  [1] This is a judicial review application of a Visa Officer’s decision of October 31, 2022 denying the Applicant’s application for a study permit and temporary resident status.

• Kashani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 706

  [1] The Applicant, a citizen of Iran, seeks judicial review of a decision of a Visa Officer refusing her study permit application.

• Vachon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 709

  [1] This decision involves two motions in the context of an application for judicial review: a motion to strike the notice of application and a motion to amend it. The underlying application seeks to invalidate a decision by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services [the Minister] to have the Crown expropriate lands necessary for the construction and operation of a rail line bypassing downtown Lac‑Mégantic. The lands in question include lands owned by the applicants.

• Parvez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 705

  [1] Mr. Sultan Liton Parvez is one of the individuals whose citizenship revocation was cancelled as a result of this Court’s decision in Hassouna v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 473. After the Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, SC 2017, c 14 (Bill C-6) came into force in January 2018, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada initiated a citizenship revocation procedure against him under the new regime.

• Patel v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 711

  [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated December 27, 2022, upholding the Refugee Protection Division’s [RPD] decision dated August 29, 2022, concluding that the Applicant is not a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2002, c 27 [IRPA] nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of IRPA, because a viable Internal Flight Alternative [IFA] is available to him in Delhi and Mumbai.

• Bhatia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 698

  [1] The Applicant, Tajinder Pal Singh Bhatia, seeks judicial review of a decision made by an Officer on October 24, 2022, rejecting the Applicant’s application for a Temporary Resident Visa (TRV).

• Farkhondehfal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 692

  [1] The applicant is a 43-year-old citizen of Iran. She seeks to set aside a decision by a visa officer dated November 1, 2022, refusing her application for a study permit under subsection 216(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the “IRPR”). The officer was not satisfied that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of her stay based on the purpose of her visit and the motivation for her proposed studies in Canada.

• Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Kaygisiz, 2024 FC 693

  [1] The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness [Minister] applies for judicial review of the decision rendered by the Immigration Division that ordered the release of the Respondent, Mr. Salim Kaygisiz, from detention without much more than conditions to report.