Alan S. Diner

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision rejecting their refugee claims based on a fear of female genital mutilation in Nigeria.

The RPD found the determinative issue to be credibility, noting a lack of objective evidence, problematic supporting evidence, inconsistent testimony, and a failure to claim asylum in the United States.

The applicants argued the RPD misconstrued a documentary exhibit.

The Federal Court found the RPD's assessment of the evidence was reasonable when read as a whole, and noted that other unchallenged credibility findings supported the decision.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a non-profit tribal council providing advisory services to five First Nations, sought judicial review of a federal Adjudicator's preliminary finding that the applicant's labour relations fell under exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The underlying matter was an unjust dismissal complaint under the Canada Labour Code by a former employee.

The Federal Court granted the application, finding that the Adjudicator erred by failing to properly apply the functional test from NIL/TU,O. The Court held that the applicant's essential character involved provincial activities such as education, health care, and technical support, and the fact that it served First Nation communities did not oust the presumption of provincial jurisdiction over its labour relations.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision rejecting their refugee claims.

The principal applicant, a citizen of Angola, feared persecution from state authorities who suspected him of supporting a separatist group after detaining and torturing his driver and arresting his nephew, both of whom died in detention.

The RPD found the principal applicant credible regarding past events but concluded the fear of forward-looking risk was speculative and that state protection was adequate.

The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the RPD unreasonably ignored key evidence supporting an objective fear and erred in its state protection analysis by focusing on government efforts rather than operational effectiveness and by imposing an unreasonable burden on the applicants to investigate police conduct.

The applicant sought judicial review of an immigration officer's decision refusing her request for an exemption from the requirement to apply for permanent residence from abroad on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under s. 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The applicant, a 64-year-old citizen of Kuwait with adult Canadian children, had a history of moving between Canada and Kuwait, experiencing domestic abuse, and losing her permanent resident status.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable.

The officer applied the wrong legal test (adopting the minority dissent from Kanthasamy without justification), overlooked key evidence regarding the applicant's reasons for losing her permanent residency and her establishment in Canada as a single parent, and improperly used her resilience as a factor against her.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicants, a family from Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) rejection of their claim for refugee protection.

The principal applicant claimed he feared for his life in Nigeria due to his bisexuality.

The RPD and RAD found numerous inconsistencies in his narrative and rejected the claim on credibility grounds.

The applicants argued the RAD decision was unreasonable and that the RPD breached procedural fairness by not giving them an opportunity to address credibility concerns regarding text messages and an email.

The Federal Court found the RAD reasonably concluded the principal applicant failed to establish his claim and that no procedural fairness breaches occurred.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a federal inmate with a lengthy history of fraudulent behaviour, sought judicial review of a decision by the Parole Board of Canada Appeal Division affirming the revocation of his statutory release by the Parole Board.

The applicant's release had been suspended three times for various breaches of conditions and lack of transparency with his Case Management Team.

The Federal Court found that the Board's conclusion that the applicant posed an undue risk to society was reasonable, justified, and transparent.

The Court also held that the tribunals reasonably dismissed allegations of bias against the CMT and adequately considered the applicant's vulnerability to COVID-19.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant applied for a work permit as a caregiver.

A visa officer refused the application on the basis that the applicant had not demonstrated she could perform the work sought and was inadmissible for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the IRPA regarding the provenance of her reference letters and her childcare duties.

The applicant sought judicial review of the decision, arguing it was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's conclusion on misrepresentation was reasonable given the contradictory evidence provided by the applicant, and that the officer met the requirements of procedural fairness by providing an interview and an opportunity to respond to concerns in a procedural fairness letter.

The applicant sought judicial review of an immigration officer's decision refusing his work permit application to work as an electrician in Canada.

The officer refused the application under paragraph 200(3)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations because the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of his English language proficiency, a requirement of the position.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and that the officer breached procedural fairness by not waiting for his IELTS results, which were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Federal Court held the decision was reasonable as the applicant bore the onus to submit sufficient documentation with his application and had failed to do so.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, noting that the duty of fairness for work permit applications is low and does not require an officer to give an applicant an opportunity to address concerns arising from insufficient evidence.

The applicant, a citizen of India, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal against a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting his refugee claim on credibility grounds.

The applicant claimed he feared police due to his brother's alleged affiliation with a Sikh militant group.

The RAD found the applicant's account contained significant contradictions, omissions, and implausibilities.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting that the RAD conducted an independent analysis and its adverse credibility findings were justified by the evidence.

The applicant, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo residing in a refugee camp in Zambia, applied for immigration under the Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program.

An immigration officer initially found she met the criteria but later refused the application after discovering the applicant's daughter had traveled to the United States on a Congolese passport.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing breaches of procedural fairness and unreasonableness.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding the officer breached procedural fairness by relying on credibility concerns that were never communicated to the applicant, denying her an opportunity to respond.

The Court also found the decision unreasonable due to inconsistent and insufficient reasoning.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting their claim for refugee protection based on credibility.

The applicants alleged a fear of the Ogboni cult in Nigeria.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings reasonable, noting material omissions and a lack of objective evidence linking the cult to alleged threats and deaths.

The Court also found the RAD did not overlook material evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision affirming that he had an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Abuja and Ibadan.

The applicant feared persecution from a cult that had previously killed his friend and sister after he refused recruitment.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting that the objective country condition evidence showed the cult had limited influence in the IFAs and that the risk of state officials being used to track the applicant was speculative.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision regarding his complaints of age and disability discrimination in ten federal public service selection processes.

The Tribunal dismissed the complaints regarding the first nine processes but found disability discrimination in the tenth.

The Federal Court dismissed both applications for judicial review, finding the Tribunal's decision reasonable in all respects, including its findings on prima facie discrimination and the duty to accommodate.

The Crown brought a motion in writing to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff had sued the Crown seeking an order obliging Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to present her with all status documents issued in her name.

The Federal Court granted the motion to strike, concluding that the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action and lacked material facts as to how prior orders of the Court gave rise to an actionable wrong.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The applicants, citizens of India, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that set aside a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) finding they were Convention refugees.

The RAD admitted new evidence from the Minister that undermined the principal applicant's credibility and substituted its own decision rejecting the claim.

The Federal Court held that the RAD unreasonably failed to address whether it was required to hold an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, despite the Minister's request for one and the significant credibility issues raised by the new evidence.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicants, citizens of Colombia, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) overturning the Refugee Protection Division's acceptance of their refugee claim.

The principal applicant fled Colombia after being targeted by criminal gangs for his anti-gang activism and religious work.

The RAD found the incidents were isolated criminal acts and rejected any nexus to political or religious opinion.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was unreasonable as it failed to engage with the evidence linking the attacks to the principal applicant's activism and failed to provide a rational chain of analysis regarding state protection and credibility.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicant, a Georgian citizen of Ossetian descent, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting his claim on the basis of adequate state protection.

The applicant alleged fear of persecution from radical nationalists.

The RAD found the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection, noting that police had intervened, questioned him, filed reports, and opened investigations following attacks in March and June 2014.

The RAD also found the applicant failed to take reasonable steps to seek protection by failing to report a subsequent attack and not providing updated contact information to police.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, distinguishing earlier case law because the RAD had examined the specific steps police took and the applicant's failure to maintain contact, and dismissed the application for judicial review.