Canadian Caselaw

Court

Jurisdiction

Latest documents

  • Yu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1360

    [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD], dated September 17, 2021, affirming a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], which found the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

  • Liqing v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1339

    [1] This is an application for judicial review of a July 30, 2021 decision [Decision] of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD], confirming the Refugee Protection Division’s [RPD] decision that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. The determinative issue was the credibility of the Applicant’s evidence relating to her alleged practice of the Falun Gong [FG] spiritual movement.

  • Zeifmans LLP v. Canada, 2022 FCA 160

    [1] The appellant accounting firm appeals from the judgment of the Federal Court dated April 26, 2021: 2021 FC 363 (per Walker J.). The Federal Court dismissed the accounting firm’s application for judicial review. In its judicial review, the accounting firm had applied for an order quashing the Minister’s requirement that it provide information to the Minister about certain of its clients.

  • X.Y. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1318

    [1] X.Y. and Y.Z. (the “Applicants”) seek judicial review of the decision of a Senior Immigration Officer (the “Officer”), dated November 6, 2020, by which their request for reconsideration of a decision made on October 22, 2020, was refused. The Officer exercised the discretion to engage in reconsideration but in so doing, said that the original decision was “sound” and maintained that decision.

  • Seydi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1336

    [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RPD], dated October 13, 2021, affirming a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], which found that the Applicant was excluded from refugee protection pursuant to Article 1(F)(a) of the Refugee Convention. To succeed the Applicant must establish an unreasonable application of the test for complicity. The RAD reconsidered the facts of this case and determined there was no such error. With respect, that Decision is unreasonable in that it failed to deal with a central component of restraining law. Therefore, judicial review is granted.

  • Mohammed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1333

    [1] The Applicant challenges his September 14, 2020 Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] Decision, [“Decision”] which upheld the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] in finding that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, pursuant to s. 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27), on the basis of an internal flight alternative [IFA] in Cape Coast, Ghana. For the reasons that follow, this judicial review is dismissed.

  • Andrews v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2022 FCA 159

    [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (the Board), dated December 20, 2021, which dismissed the applicant’s duty of fair representation complaint (the complaint) against her bargaining agent, the Public Service Alliance of Canada (the Union). The Board came to the conclusion, based on the written submissions of the parties, that the applicant’s allegations against the Union, even if taken as true, did not amount to an arguable case that the Union acted in an arbitrary manner or in bad faith: Andrews v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, 2021 FPSLREB 141 (Board’s decision).

  • Li v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1327

    [1] The Applicants, Zhengdong Li (“Li”) and Lejun Liu (“Liu”), seek judicial review of the decisions of an immigration officer (the “Officer”) of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”), dated November 18, 2019, denying the Applicants’ applications for permanent resident visas under the Start-Up Business Class (“SUBC”) program. The two applications for judicial review are based on the same submissions. Therefore, only one set of reasons is necessary.

  • Ehichoya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1329

    [1] The Applicant, Sylvester Oziegbe Ehichoya, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (“RAD”) dated August 10, 2020, upholding the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”) finding that the Applicant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (“IRPA”).

  • Fagbola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1222

    [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [the “RAD”], dated February 4, 2021 [the “Decision”], which dismissed the Applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board [the “RPD”], dated December 3, 2019.

Featured documents

  • R. v. Généreux, 8 CRR (2d) 89

    [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...

  • 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...

  • Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65

    [1]                              This appeal and its companion cases (see Bell Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 66), provide this Court with...

  • 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...

  • R. v. Ipeelee (M.), 288 OAC 224

    [1] LeBel, J. : These two appeals raise the issue of the principles governing the sentencing of Aboriginal offenders for breaches of long-term supervision orders ("LTSO"). Both appeals concern Aboriginal offenders with long criminal records. They provide an opportunity to revisit and...

  • New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, 164 ACWS (3d) 727

    [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. Finta (I.), 23 WCB (2d) 3

    [1] Cory, J. : How should the section of the Criminal Code dealing with war crimes and crimes against humanity be interpreted? That is the fundamental issue to be resolved in this appeal....

  • Young v. Young et al., [1993] 4 SCR 3

    [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&...

  • R. v. Chaulk, 69 Man R (2d) 161
  • 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 ...

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