Canadian Caselaw

Court

Jurisdiction

Latest documents

  • Hussain v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

    [1] The Applicant, Mr. Rayhan Hussain, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dismissing his appeal of a negative refugee determination by the Refugee Protection Division [RPD].

  • Begum v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

    [1] Ms. Hameeda Begum (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of an officer (the “Officer”), refusing her application for permanent residence in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate (“H and C”) grounds pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27) (the “Act”).

  • Hijazin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

    [1] The Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dismissed the Applicant’s appeal from the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], agreeing that he has viable internal flight alternatives [IFA] in three cities in Jordan: Ma’an, Al Aqaba, and Fuheis.

  • Fazio v. TD Bank

    [1] The Plaintiff, Marie Pia Fazio, seeks reconsideration of an order dated December 16, 2025, striking her statement of claim without leave to amend (the “Order”). The Plaintiff brings this motion pursuant to Rule 397 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (the “Rules”).

  • Faoye v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

    [1] The Applicant, a 38-year-old citizen of Nigeria, seeks judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated February 11, 2025, confirming the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] refusing the Applicant’s claim for refugee protection under section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. The RAD agreed with the RPD that the Applicant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(b) of the United Nations’ Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, July 28, 1951, [1969] Can TS No 6 [Refugee Convention], for there being serious reasons for considering that she has committed a serious non-political crime — namely, child abduction.

  • Goitom et AL v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

    [1] The Applicants, Eden Rezene, Solomon Yohanes Goitom, and their minor sons Yonathan Solomon Yahannes and Isaac Samuel Solomon Yahannes [the Minor Applicants] seek judicial review of the decision of an Inland Enforcement Officer [the Officer] of the Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA], dated December 18, 2024. The Officer refused the Applicants’ request to defer the execution of their removal order (i.e., their removal) from Canada to Sweden until July 2025, following the completion of the school year, as they had requested.

  • Canada (Border Services Agency) v. B. Cooper

    [1] This is an appeal pursuant to paragraph 68(1)(b) of the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp) (the Act) of a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the Tribunal), dated October 2, 2024 (AP-2022-039). In its decision, the Tribunal granted in part the respondent’s appeal of a redetermination decision made by the President of the Canada Border Services Agency (the President) on the tariff classification of a Kershaw branded folding knife imported by the respondent (the Knife at issue).

  • Akar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

    [1] The Applicant, Mr. Niyazi Akar, challenges the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dismissing his appeal from the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] that found that he had failed to credibly establish that he faces a serious possibility of persecution or a risk of harm under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act].

  • Seidu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

    [1] The Applicant Mr. Abdul Rahim Seidu, a citizen of Ghana who fears persecution because of his sexual orientation, seeks judicial review of the December 2, 2024 decision [Decision] of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD]. The RAD’s Decision dismissed Mr. Seidu’s appeal and confirmed the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] that he is neither 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]. The RAD found that the Respondent Minister of Citizenship and Immigration [Minister] had presented reliable evidence of Mr. Seidu’s identity as a Belizean citizen. The RAD further found that Mr. Seidu had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the Minister’s evidence and to establish his identity as a citizen of Ghana and of no other country. Consequently, the RAD found that there was no evidence demonstrating that Mr. Seidu faces a risk under sections 96 or 97in Belize.

  • Morales Morales v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

    [1] This is a judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] to affirm the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] that the Applicants are not convention refugees or persons in need of protection under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [IRPA] sections 96 and 97.

Featured documents