Alain Tayeye

The applicant, a former member of the Nigerian Police Force, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division finding him inadmissible to Canada under section 35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for reasonable grounds to believe he engaged in crimes against humanity.

The Immigration Division applied the Ezokola test and found that the applicant made a knowing and significant contribution to the crimes committed by the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS).

The Federal Court found the decision-maker reasonably assessed the relevant factors and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff, an independent contractor, sued for breach of contract and intentional infliction of mental suffering after his bid in a public procurement process was rejected.

The court found that the pleadings lacked the essential material facts to support either cause of action, particularly failing to identify any breached terms of 'Contract A' or specific outrageous conduct.

The motion to strike was granted, but the plaintiff was given 30 days limited leave to amend the claim regarding Contract A and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

During a criminal trial for robbery, the court conducted a blended voir dire to determine whether statements made by the accused during a police video interview were voluntary and admissible.

The defence argued that the statements were involuntary and obtained in breach of Charter rights under ss. 7, 10(a), and 10(b), including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel.

The court found that the accused had been informed of the charges, had consulted counsel, and confirmed satisfaction with that advice before the interview.

The court concluded that the accused spoke with a free and operating mind and that the police conduct did not amount to improper persistence or coercion.

The statements were ruled voluntary and admitted into evidence.

The accused was charged with attempted robbery of a bus pass and robbery of money arising from a school incident in which two younger students were led into a bathroom by a group of older students and intimidated.

The Crown alleged the accused was a party to the offences under s. 21 of the Criminal Code by aiding and abetting the principal offender.

The court considered witness testimony, surveillance stills, and the accused’s voluntary police interview admitting participation and sharing in the proceeds.

The court rejected the accused’s explanation that he was merely present and found that he knowingly participated in a coordinated intimidation designed to obtain money.

The accused was found guilty of both attempted theft and robbery as a party to the offences.