Canadian Caselaw

Court

Jurisdiction

Latest documents

• Shen v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2025 FC 732

  [1] The Applicant, Da Xiang Shen [Mr. Shen], seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Division [IAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada dated February 9, 2024. The IAD dismissed Mr. Shen’s appeal of the exclusion order issued by the Immigration Division [ID], which found that Mr. Shen had misrepresented the number of days spent in Canada when he applied for the renewal of his permanent resident card. The IAD found that Mr. Shen engaged in misrepresentation pursuant to paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act], and also found that there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] considerations to overcome the misrepresentation and to grant special relief.

• Contois v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 743

  [1] The Applicant lost his job in March 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. He applied for and received the Canada Emergency Response Benefit [CERB] and, later, the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB] until December 2020. This judicial review application arises out of the Applicant’s April 2022 request to antedate his application for employment insurance [EI] benefits to March 2020, in accordance with subsection 10(4) of the Employment Insurance Act, SC 1996, c 23 [EI Act].

• Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association Ltd. v. Canada (the Attorney General), 2025 FC 737

  [1] The Applicant, the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association (PEIFA or the Association) seeks judicial review of the refusal by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard (the Minister) to reallocate the quota for the fishing of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (BFT) in order to increase the share allotted to PEI fishers. They say that the current quota allocation is unfair, and the Minister’s refusal to review it is unreasonable because when the quota was originally set the then-Minister promised to review it on a regular basis. No review has been done in the more than 20 years since that promise was made.

• Telus Communications Inc. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2025 SCC 15

  [1]                             This appeal is about the proper interpretation of the term “transmission line” in ss. 43 and 44 of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38 (“Act”). These provisions are known as the “access regime”. They give telecommunications carriers a qualified right of access to construct, maintain and operate their transmission lines situated on public property. Where the carrier cannot obtain consent to access its transmission lines from the relevant public authority on terms that are acceptable to it, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC”) is empowered to determine the applicable terms of access.

• Ghanitab v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 745

  [1] The Applicant, Reza Ghanitab, seeks judicial review of the decision refusing his application for permanent residence and finding him inadmissible for misrepresentation.

• The Jewish Community Council of Montreal v. Canada (the Attorney General), 2025 FC 729

  [1] This matter was initially brought to the Court as an Application for Judicial Review [AJR] on March 8, 2024. However, on October 17, 2024, the Applicants brought this motion under s 18.4(2) of the Federal Courts Act R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7 [Act] seeking an order to allow certain rules governing actions to apply to their AJR, a process commonly referred to as “conversion”.

• A.B. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 735

  [1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”), granting the Respondent’s application to cease her refugee protection because she reavailed herself of the protection of Türkiye.

• Degefu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 738

  [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision (the “Decision”) by an Immigration Officer at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (the “Officer”). The Decision refused an application for a Work Permit (“WP”) under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the “Regulations”).

• Bhardwaj v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 736

  [1] This is an application for judicial review of two decisions (the “Decisions”) by a Visa Officer refusing the Applicants’ request for temporary resident visas (“TRVs”).

• Regan v. Masonite International Corporation, 2025 FC 721

  [1] The plaintiff filed motions under Rule 334 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, for approval of two settlement agreements that will resolve this proceeding, a distribution protocol related to the settlement funds, and the fees and disbursements of class counsel.

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...

• R. v. Morgentaler, (1988) 82 N.R. 1 (SCC)

  [1] Dickson, C.J.C. : The principal issue raised by this appeal is whether the abortion provisions of the Criminal Code infringe the "right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice" as...

• 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...

• New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, (2008) 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1 (SCC)

  [1] Bastarache and LeBel, JJ. : This appeal calls on the Court to consider, once again, the troubling question of the approach to be taken in judicial review of decisions of administrative tribunals. The recent history of judicial review in Canada has been marked by ebbs and flows of deference,...

• 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...

• Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., (2002) 287 N.R. 248 (SCC)

  [1] Iacobucci, J. : This appeal involves an issue that has divided courts in our country. It concerns the proper interpretation of s. 9(1)(c) of the Radiocommunication Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. R-2, as am. by S.C. 1991, c. 11, s. 83. In practical terms, the issue is whether s. 9(1)(c) prohibits the...

• R. v. K.G.B., (1993) 148 N.R. 241 (SCC)

  [1] Lamer, C.J.C. : The issue in this appeal is the substantive admissibility of prior inconsistent statements by a witness other than an accused. The Crown asks this court to reconsider the common law rule which limits the use of such statements to im­peaching the credibility of the witness. In my ...

• D.B.S. v. S.R.G., (2006) 351 N.R. 201 (SCC)

  [1] Bastarache, J. : The present appeals involve the parental obligation to support one's children, and the question of whether this obligation compels parents to make child support payments for periods of time when the responsibility to do so was never identi­fied, much less enforced. This...

• Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, (1998) 221 N.R. 241 (SCC)

  [1] Iacobucci, J. : This is an appeal by the former employees of a now bankrupt employer from an order disallowing their claims for termination pay (including vacation pay thereon) and severance pay. The case turns on an issue of statutory interpretation. Specifically, the appeal decides whether,...

• Abbott and Haliburton Co. Ltd. et al. v. WBLI Chartered Accountants, [2015] N.R. TBEd. AP.021

  [1] Cromwell, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Abella, Rothstein, Moldaver, Wagner and Gascon, JJ., concurring) : Expert opinion evidence can be a key element in the search for truth, but it may also pose special dangers. To guard against them, the Court over the last 20 years or so has progressively...