Federal Court (Canada)

[1] Ugochinyere Julia Iwuchukwu is a citizen of Nigeria. She seeks judicial of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board [IRB]. The RAD confirmed the determination of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] of the IRB that Ms. Iwuchukwu is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to ss 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and...

[1] The Applicant, Promise Wobilo Worlu, seeks judicial review of the decision by the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board refusing the appeal of his claim for refugee protection.

[1] Joseph Hickey seeks judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal [Appeal Division]. The Appeal Division concluded there was no arguable case that the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal [General Division] erred in finding he was ineligible for employment insurance benefits.

[1] This is an application for judicial review of a negative decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD], who found the Applicant had not sufficiently established his identity as a 19-year-old citizen of Ghana (14 at the time he filed his refugee claim and 17 at the time of his hearing before the RPD), and rejected his refugee claim.

[1] Mr. Muneer Alam [the Applicant] is a Canadian citizen who applied to sponsor Mrs. Sana Muneer, his new Pakistani wife. Having accepted the Applicant’s testimony that the marriage has been arranged by the couple’s parents, the Immigration Appeal Division [IAD] dismissed the Applicant’s appeal as it found there was insufficient evidence explaining why the couple was considered a “good match”.

[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] rejecting Eran Green’s application for permanent residence because it was incomplete. For the reasons set out below, I am granting the application because Mr. Green was deprived of procedural fairness as a result of his previous representative’s incompetence.

[1] The Applicant, Mr. Gurjant Singh, citizen of India, seeks judicial review of a decision dated March 6, 2025 [Decision] of a visa officer [Officer] of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] refusing his application for a temporary resident visa [TRV], pursuant to paragraph 179(b) Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [IRPR], on the basis that the Officer was

[1] The Applicant, Mohammad Zuhier Methkal Bushnaq [Applicant], seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD] dated December 9, 2024 [the Decision], upholding a decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] finding that the Applicant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. The determinative issue for both the RPD and the RAD was the...

[1] Kanwaljeet Kaur [the Principal Applicant], a citizen of India, seeks judicial review of a decision dated September 12, 2024, of an immigration officer [Officer] that denied the Principal Applicant’s permanent residence application under the Temporary Public Policy: Temporary Resident to Permanent Resident Pathway: Workers in-Canada: Stream A (healthcare) [Policy]. The Officer was not...

[1] The Applicant, Erin Gray, seeks judicial review of a decision by the Canada Revenue Agency [CRA] denying her eligibility for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit [CERB].

[1] Mr. Seyed Hossein Hosseini seeks judicial review of an Immigration Officer’s refusal of his work permit application. Mr. Hosseini, a citizen of Iran, incorporated Dideh Gostar Tahjiz Company in Ontario with the intention of selling medical equipment in Canada. He applied for a work permit under the International Mobility Program (IMP) code C11, for business owners seeking temporary residence.

[1] The self-represented Applicant, Sandra Louise Angst, applied for and was granted the Canada Emergency Response Benefit [CERB] and the Canada Recovery Benefit [CRB] for the periods of March 15, 2020 – September 26, 2020 and September 27, 2020 – October 24, 2020, respectively.

[1] This is an application for judicial review of a July 15, 2024 decision [Decision] of the Canadian Human Rights Commission [CHRC], dismissing the Applicant’s complaint against the Respondent, the Toronto-Dominion Bank [TD], pursuant to subparagraph 44(3)(b)(i) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, RSC, 1985, c H-6 [CHRA]. On receipt of the investigator’s report [Report], the CHRC found that an...

[1] This decision addresses a motion brought by the Defendant [the Motion] in the underlying proposed class action [the Action] in which the representative Plaintiffs, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police [RCMP], allege that their right to privacy has been violated by the RCMP and other agents of His Majesty the King in right of Canada [Canada] and consequently claim damages and other...

[1] This is an application under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act] for Leave and for Judicial Review of the Pre-removal Risk Assessment [PRRA] decision of Senior Immigration Officer [the Officer] dated October 29, 2024. The Officer determined that the Applicants were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection under section 96 or...

[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of the December 20, 2024, redetermination decision [the Decision] made by the Immigration and Refugee Board [the IRB] of Canada’s Refugee Appeal Division [the RAD] that confirmed the rejection of the Applicant’s claim for refugee status pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27.

[1] The Respondent, Alberta Advantage Immigration Program [AAIP], brings motions pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [Rules] to strike two judicial review applications [Applications] on the basis that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Applications. The motions are brought in Court File No. T-4040-25 [Patel Application], brought by Om Sanjaykumar Patel [Patel]

[1] Taghreed Azar seeks judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal [Appeal Division]. The Appeal Division concluded there was no arguable case that the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal [General Division] erred in finding that she was ineligible for employment insurance benefits.

[1] The Applicant seeks judicial review of an immigration officer’s [Officer] negative pre-removal risk assessment [PRRA] decision, dated September 20, 2023.

[1] The Applicant, Ghazanfar Muhammad [Applicant], is a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan [Pakistan] who obtained and lost his Canadian refugee status after he was found inadmissible for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [Act]. Having been married to a Canadian citizen since 2017 with whom he raises three children, he

[1] The Applicant, Yuhan Zeng (Ms. Zeng) challenges a November 1, 2023 decision (Decision) by an officer (Officer) of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) advising that she did not meet the eligibility criteria to receive the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit (CRCB).

[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division [RPD] dated October 3, 2024 [Decision] rejecting the Applicant’s claim for refugee protection pursuant to section 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27. The RPD found that the claim had no credible basis.

[1] The Respondent Attorney General of Canada brings a motion in writing to strike the applications for judicial review [Applications] filed by Dr. Gladman and Dr. Billyard [Applicants].

[1] The Applicant family are citizens of Mexico, who seek judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) finding that they have an internal flight alternative (IFA) within Mexico. They argue that the RAD misapplied the IFA test and failed to recognize that, despite their attempts to relocate within Mexico, there was an ongoing pattern of targeting the male applicant by the Cártel de...

[1] The Applicant, Marcel Brad Aaron Ndigui [Applicant], seeks judicial review of a decision by Immigration, Refugee and Citizenship Canada [IRCC] dated December 30, 2024, refusing his application for a student permit and finding him inadmissible for misrepresentation under subsection 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] [Decision].

[1] This is a judicial review of a decision made in December 2023 by Public Services and Procurement Canada (“PSPC”) to disclose information requested under the Access to Information Act, RSC 1985, c A-1 (the “ATIA”). The Applicant, TPG Technology Consulting Ltd, seeks an order prohibiting PSPC from disclosing the information at issue pursuant to paragraphs 20(1)(b), 20(1)(c), and 20(1)(d) of the

[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of a visa officer [Officer] dated October 7, 2024, wherein the Officer concluded that Ziya Misaghi [the Principal Applicant] had failed to meet the criteria for the issuance of a work permit pursuant to subsection 205(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2022-227 [Regulations]. The Principal Applicant’s spouse

[1] The Applicant, TPG Technology Consulting Ltd, seeks judicial review of a decision by Public Services and Procurement Canada (“PSPC”), dated February 29, 2024, which allowed the disclosure of information requested under the Access to Information Act, RSC 1985, c A-1 (the “ATIA”). The Applicant submits that the information in dispute is exempt from disclosure requirements under paragraphs 20(1)(

[1] The Applicant, a 43-year-old citizen from Iran, seeks judicial review of the decision of a visa officer [Officer] refusing the Applicant’s application for a temporary resident visa [TRV] to permit him to visit his sister in Montreal, Quebec, from April 1 to May 1, 2025.

[1] The Applicant, Masoumeh Kafshgarsouteh, seeks judicial review of a decision, made by the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), dated April 12, 2024, finding her ineligible for several periods when she received the Canada Recovery Benefit (“CRB”). Based on a second review of Ms. Kafshgarsouteh’s eligibility for CRB, the CRA determined that she failed to show that her average weekly income was reduced