Canadian Caselaw

Court

Jurisdiction

Latest documents

  • Safaie v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1761

    [1] The Applicant, a young woman from Iran, wishes to pursue Canadian post-secondary studies in music. To facilitate this goal, she applied for a study permit to complete her high school studies in Canada. An Officer with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] denied Ms. Safaie’s application, finding that she had not sufficiently explained how the proposed studies in Canada would benefit her.

  • Tanwar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1762

    [1] The applicants, Tajender Tanwar and his spouse Dimple Kumari, seek judicial review of a June 5, 2023 decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The RAD dismissed the applicants’ appeal and confirmed the Refugee Protection Division’s (RPD) decision that they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 or 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27, because they have viable internal flight alternatives (IFA) within India.

  • The Prince Edward Island Potato Board v. Canada (Agriculture and Agri-Food), 2024 FCA 180

    [1] The Prince Edward Island Potato Board [Appellant] appeals a judgment of the Federal Court (per Southcott J.) dismissing its judicial review of an Order issued by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food [Minister] under section 15(3) of the Plant Protection Act, SC 1990, c 22, declaring the entire province of Prince Edward Island [PEI] as “a place infested with potato wart” and prohibiting the movement of PEI seed potatoes from PEI without written authorization from an inspector [Ministerial Order].

  • Alizadeh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1757

    [1] The Applicants seek judicial review of the June 19, 2023, decisions of a visa officer [the Officer] refusing to issue a study permit to the Principal Applicant (Dr. Rahil Haji Alizadeh) and refusing to issue a work permit to the co-Applicant and accompanying spouse (Dr. Mohammad Nikdel).

  • Bahena Velazquez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1750

    [1] The Applicants, Mr. Bahena Velazquez, his wife and two children, bring this application pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act] to set aside the June 5, 2023, decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The RAD dismissed the Applicants’ appeal from the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] and found that the Applicants were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Act because they had an internal flight alternative [IFA] within Mexico in Merida.

  • Prajapati v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1753

    [1] The applicant, Vijaykumar Shankarlal Prajapati, brings this application for judicial review of a visa officer’s September 27, 2023 decision that refused his application for permanent residence in the Federal Skilled Workers class. Mr. Prajapati was invited to apply after being accepted into the express entry pool of candidates.

  • Nguyen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1754

    [1] The applicant, Quang Minh Nguyen, is a citizen of Vietnam. He sought refugee protection in Canada based on a fear of religious persecution as a practicing Roman Catholic. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board accepted that Mr. Nguyen is a practicing Roman Catholic, but rejected his claim for protection on the basis that his fear of persecution was not well-founded. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissed Mr. Nguyen’s appeal. While the RAD noted an error in the RPD’s analysis, it ultimately agreed with the RPD that Mr. Nguyen had not established an objective basis for his fear of religious persecution in Vietnam.

  • Ruchika v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1737

    [1] Ms. Ruchika, the Applicant, seeks judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated September 6, 2023 [Decision]. The RAD dismissed Ms. Ruchika’s appeal of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD]’s decision and agreed with the RPD that she was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act].

  • Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Karshe, 2024 FC 1743

    [1] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Minister] seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB]. The RAD confirmed the determination by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the IRB that Yahya Hassan Karshe is a Convention refugee.

  • Nezhad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1747

    [1] Ms. Nezhad seeks judicial review of a decision made by an Immigration Officer [Officer] refusing her application for a study permit [Application], dated June 19, 2023 [Decision]. The Officer was not satisfied that she would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay, pursuant to paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR, with provisions indicated by “R”]. For the reasons below, I am granting this application for judicial review.

Featured documents

  • Hodgkinson v. Simms et al., (1994) 171 N.R. 245 (SCC)

    [1] La Forest, J. : This is a case of material nondisclosure in which the appellant alleges breach of fiduciary duty and breach of con­tract against the respondent in the perfor­mance of a contract for investment advice and other tax-related financial services. The respondent, Mr. Simms, was a...

  • Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2009) 385 N.R. 206 (SCC)

    [1] Binnie, J. : At issue in this appeal is the extent to which, if at all, the exercise by judges of statutory powers of judicial review (such as those established by ss. 18 and 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7) is governed by the common law principles lately analysed by our...

  • R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), 2000 SCC 5

    [1] Lamer, C.J.C. : By passing the Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing) and other Acts in consequence thereof , S.C. 1995, c. 22 ("Bill C-41"), Parliament has sent a clear message to all Canadian judges that too many people are being sent to prison. In an attempt to remedy the problem of...

  • R. v. Grant (D.), (2009) 391 N.R. 1 (SCC)

    [1] McLachlin, C.J.C., and Charron, J. : Mr. Grant appeals his convictions on a series of firearms offences, relating to a gun seized by police during an encounter on a Toronto sidewalk. The gun was entered as evidence against Mr. Grant and formed the basis of his convictions. The question on this...

  • Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al., [2013] N.R. TBEd. JN.015

    [1] LeBel, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Fish, Abella, Rothstein, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ., concurring) : The appellant, Muhsen Ahmed Ramadan Agraira, a citizen of Libya, has been residing in Canada continuously since 1997, despite having been found to be inadmissible on security grounds in 2002....

  • Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), (1997) 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 (SCC)

    [1] Lamer, C.J.C. : The four appeals handed down today - Reference Re Re­muneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.) (No. 24508), Reference re Independence and Impartiality of Judges of the Provincial Court of Prince Edward Island (No. 24778), R. v. Campbell, R. v. Ekmecic and R. v....

  • Mckinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 SCR 229

    Equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Reasonable limit on the rights guarantee. Mandatory retirement. Government...

  • R. v. Généreux, (1992) 133 N.R. 241 (SCC)

    [1] Lamer, C.J.C. : This appeal involves a constitutional challenge, under ss. 7, 11(d) and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , to the proceedings of a General Court Martial convened under the National Defence Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. N-5. The principal question raised in this case...

  • Young v. Young et al., (1993) 160 N.R. 1 (SCC)

    [1] McLachlin, J. : This case raises the question whether a divorced parent, who does not have custody, should be able to offer his children his religious views over the objection of the custodial parent. This issue raises, in turn, the question of the place of the "best interests of the child"...

  • Gordon v. Goertz, (1996) 196 N.R. 321 (SCC)

    [1] McLachlin, J. : When parents separate, one typically enjoys custody of the child, the other access. So long as both parents live in the same area, this arrangement protects the child's continuing relationship with both parents. However, if the custodial parent decides to move away and change...

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