in Canadian Caselaw › Canada (Federal)
in vLex Canada

74823 results for Canadian Caselaw › Canada (Federal)

  • vLex Rating
  • R. v. Poulin, 2019 SCC 47

    [1]                              Every person charged with an offence in Canada enjoys certain basic rights. One such right is contained in s. 11 (i) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms  (“Charter ”), which grants a person found guilty of an offence the right “to the benefit of the lesser punishment” “if the punishment . . . has been varied between the time of commission [of the...

  • Girouard v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1282

    [1]  The applicant, the Honourable Justice Michel Girouard (Justice Girouard), seeks an order to invalidate a number of decisions and procedural steps that resulted in a report to the Minister of Justice Canada (the Minister) recommending that the judge be removed from office. For the reasons that follow, I dismiss the application for judicial review. 

  • Farah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1280

    [1]  The present Application concerns a refugee claim made by the Applicant, a citizen of Somalia. The decision under review is that of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), dated October 12, 2018, on appeal from a decision from the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting the claim, dated October 6, 2017.

  • Alameddine v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1285

    [1]  Ms. Darine Alameddine, the Applicant, seeks judicial review of a decision (Decision) of a migration officer (Officer) of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada in London, England, denying her application for permanent residence. The Officer concluded that Ms. Alameddine and her son, Karim, were not members of the family class by virtue of paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration...

  • Oceanex Inc. v. Canada (Transport), 2019 FCA 250

    [1]  The Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada require Canada to maintain a freight and passenger ferry service on what is known as the “constitutional route” – the route between North Sydney, Nova Scotia and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland and Labrador: Newfoundland Act, 12 & 13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (U.K.), Schedule, Term 32(1). Since 1987, the respondent Marine Atlantic Inc., a federal...

  • Zarifi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1207

    [1]  The Applicant, Mohemmad Arif Zarifi, is a citizen of Afghanistan who was found to be inadmissible to Canada as a result of his past employment with the Afghanistan Ministry of Defence.  On this judicial review of his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), the Applicant argues that the PRRA Officer [Officer] should have afforded him an oral interview and that the Officer was unreasonable...

  • Gur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1275

    [1]  Mr. Onur Gur makes an application for the judicial review of the decision of a visa officer who refused to issue a permanent resident visa in the self-employed persons class. That decision was made on January 10, 2019 and the judicial review application is made pursuant to section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 [IRPA].

  • Arokkiyanathan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1274

    [1]  Mr. Charles Arokkiyanathan (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision, dated January 26, 2018, made by a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer (the “Officer”) dismissing his Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (the “PRRA”) application. The Officer determined that the Applicant was not a person in need of protection as defined in subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee...

  • Lin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1284

    [1]  Mr. Chunbo Lin (the “Applicant”) is a Chinese citizen who applied for permanent residence under the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (“SINP”).  On October 18, 2018, a Canadian visa officer (the “Officer”) at Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada’s (“IRCC”) Hong Kong office rejected the Applicant’s application.  The Officer rejected the application for material...

  • R. v. M.R.H., 2019 SCC 46
  • Csiklya v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1276

    [1]  This is an application under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (“IRPA”) for judicial review of the decision of a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer (the “Officer”) dated October 17, 2018, which refused the Applicants’ Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (“PRRA”) application.  The Applicants fear for their lives in Hungary on the basis of their Roma...

  • Del Carmen Aguirre Perez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1269

    [1]  This is an application under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001 c 27 (“IRPA”) for judicial review of a decision (the “Decision”) made by the Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”).  On September 5, 2018, the RPD determined that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection, respectively pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1

  • Crocket v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 203

    [1]  The Appellant, Dustin Crockett is appealing the Minister of National Revenue’s (the “Minister”) assessment disallowing rental losses for the 2013 and 2014 taxation years. The losses related to a vacation rental home, owned by the Appellant’s mother but rented by the Appellant, located in Tulameen, British Columbia. The amounts of claimed losses in issue were $28,938.34 in 2013 and $25,9

  • Gupta v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1270

    [1]  Mr. Gupta claims that the refusal of his application for a temporary resident visa [TRV] was unfair and unreasonable. He asserts that he was not given a fair chance to respond to a concern about a misrepresentation that was raised in a fairness letter, and that this resulted in improper adverse credibility findings. He also argues that the refusal was unreasonable given his family ties

  • HAMID AHMAT HOURRA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2019 FC 1266

    [1]  The applicant, Hamid Ahmat Hourra, a 23-year-old citizen of Chad, is seeking judicial review of a decision rendered on February 1, 2019, by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board. In its decision, the RAD confirmed the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) that the applicant is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 nor a person in...

  • Fleming v. Ontario, 2019 SCC 45

    [1]                              On May 24, 2009, officers of the Ontario Provincial Police (“O.P.P.”) arrested the appellant, Randolph (Randy) Fleming, in Caledonia, Ontario. He had committed no crime. He had broken no law. He was not about to commit any offence, harm anyone, or breach the peace. In essence, the O.P.P. officers claimed to have arrested Mr. Fleming for his own protection. The...

  • Thorne v. Canada, 2017 FC 1116

    [1]  When the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada [respectively Minister and INAC] retained jurisdiction of Eugene Thorne’s testamentary matters and approved his will, the Minister did so despite allegations of duress, undue influence, lack of capacity, and hardship. Eugene Thorne’s son, William Thorne, appealed the Minister’s decision to the Federal Court pursuant to section

  • Patashuri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1261

    [1]  Mr. Edisher Patashuri (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Appeal Division (the “RAD”), confirming the decision of the Refugee Protection Division (the “RPD”) that he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection within the meaning of section 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively, of the Immigration...

  • Canada (Attorney General) v. Santawirya, 2019 FCA 248

    [1]  The Attorney General of Canada applies for judicial review of an interlocutory decision of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (the Board) dated July 18, 2017, (Santawirya v. Deputy Head (Canada Border Services Agency), 2017 FPSLREB 10). In that decision, the Board found that Ms. Santawirya was an employee under the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act,

  • Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Amgen Inc., 2019 FCA 249

    [1]  This is an appeal by Pfizer Canada Inc. (Pfizer) of a decision rendered by Prothonotary Milczynski (the Prothonotary) on October 25, 2018 (T-741-18) pursuant to which she dismissed a motion brought by Pfizer seeking the dismissal of an action commenced in the Federal Court by the respondents Amgen Inc. and Amgen Canada Inc. (Amgen). More particularly, by its motion, Pfizer argued that...

  • Kurnik v. The Queen, 2019 TCC 206

    [1]  This appeal concerns the deductibility of legal fees from income purportedly incurred to collect or retain employment income and benefits.

  • Digaf v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1255

    [1]  The Applicants, Feven Eskinder Digaf and her son, Aloniab Robel Berhane, seek judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The RAD dismissed the Applicants’ appeal of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and confirmed the RPD’s decision that they were neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of...

  • Watto v. Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council, 2019 FC 1259

    [1]  In a Judgment and Reasons dated July 30, 2019, the Court dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review concerning a preliminary ruling in a discipline proceeding brought against him by the respondent Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council [ICCRC] (Watto v Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council, 2019 FC 1024 [Watto]).  In a Supplementary Judgment...

  • Gursimran v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1260

    [1]  The Applicant seeks judicial review of a March 28, 2019 exclusion order issued against her for not complying with the terms of her study permit. She entered Canada in August 2016 to attend the business program at Simon Fraser University (“SFU”). She was unsuccessful at SFU and enrolled in programs at two other institutions where she was also unsuccessful. Her attendance at these...

  • Brass v. Papequash, 2019 FCA 245

    [1]  Rodney Brass et al. (the appellants) appeal a judgment of Barnes J. of the Federal Court (the Judge) dated March 21, 2018 (2018 FC 325).

  • Telecon Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 213, 2019 FCA 244

    [1]  Telecon Inc. (Telecon, or the applicant) applies for judicial review of a decision of the Canada Industrial Relations Board (the Board) dated February 19, 2018 (the Decision). The Board granted the application for certification of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 213 (the IBEW, or the respondent), under section 24 of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 198

  • Gill v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1249

    [1]  Mr. Gill seeks to set aside the October 23, 2018 decision of an immigration officer [the Officer] denying his application to apply for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.  For the reasons that follow, I can find no basis to set aside the Officer’s decision; based on the evidence, it is reasonable.

  • Mason v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1251

    [1]  This case is about the interpretation of the inadmissibility provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act]. The Minister alleges that Mr. Mason, a foreign national, is inadmissible pursuant to section 34(1)(e) of the Act, for “engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada.” Mr. Mason, however,...

  • Arksey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FC 1250

    [1]  The Applicant, Sonya Arksey, has applied for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada [SST]. The Appeal Division denied Ms. Arksey leave to appeal a decision of the General Division of the SST because the appeal had no reasonable chance of success.

  • Lawrence v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 1248

    [1]  The parties do not dispute the underlying facts in this matter.  That said, I will briefly set out the unusual procedural history of this case.

  • Free signup to view additional results