Alex Kam

The applicant applied for permanent residence under a temporary public policy for refugee claimants who worked in the health care sector during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The application was refused because an immigration officer determined that the applicant's unpaid internship did not meet the criteria, asserting that the program was not "accredited." The applicant sought judicial review, arguing a breach of procedural fairness.

The Federal Court held that the officer breached procedural fairness by relying on an extrinsic requirement of accreditation without providing the applicant an opportunity to respond.

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

This appeal concerns the interaction between a provincial legislative scheme governing child protection (CYFSA) and a federal legislative scheme for removing those without citizenship or immigration status from Canada (IRPA).

Specifically, it addresses a disclosure order granted to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness in a child protection status hearing.

The motion judge granted the disclosure, which was upheld by the Superior Court.

The appellants (the parent, the Children's Aid Society, and the Office of the Children's Lawyer) argued that the disclosure order improperly prioritized the Minister's interests over the children's privacy and best interests.

The Court of Appeal found that while the motion judge had jurisdiction to order disclosure, she erred by not requiring the Minister to establish a prima facie basis for the scope of submissions or the requested disclosure.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted to the motion judge for reconsideration based on a new framework requiring the Minister to justify the scope of submissions and disclosure.

The applicant sought judicial review of a senior immigration officer's decision refusing her application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicant argued the officer selectively reviewed and ignored evidence regarding the best interests of her child (who was diagnosed with Anxiety Disorder) and the impact of removal on her own mental health (having been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder).

The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable.

The officer failed to adequately consider the child's anxiety diagnosis and the impact of removal on both the child's and the applicant's mental health, thereby unreasonably minimizing the best interests of the child and dismissing critical medical evidence.

The applicant, a Jamaican citizen, sought judicial review of a decision refusing her humanitarian and compassionate exemption application.

The court found that the officer's assessment of the applicant's medical evidence, including diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, was unreasonable.

The officer failed to adequately grapple with the impact of removal on the applicant's mental health, particularly the risk of suicidal ideation.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting her claim for refugee protection based on her practice of Falun Gong in China.

The RPD found the applicant's supporting documents to be likely fraudulent and her narrative of exiting China via a smuggler using her own passport to be implausible given airport security measures.

The Federal Court held the RPD's assessment of the evidence, including its comparison of summonses and treatment of the applicant's ability to exit the country, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing her request to reconsider a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA).

The request for reconsideration was based on allegations that her previous legal representatives had been incompetent.

The Federal Court found that the officer's decision refusing to reopen the PRRA lacked intelligibility and justification, as the officer failed to adequately consider the applicant's vulnerability and the specific evidence of inadequate representation.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted to a different officer.

The applicant, a 71-year-old citizen of Russia, sought judicial review of a visa officer's refusal of her application for a temporary resident visa to visit her son in Canada.

The visa officer refused the application on the basis of insufficient funds and lack of ties to her home country.

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the visa officer's decision unreasonable because the GCMS notes lacked sufficient justification for concluding the applicant's son could not support her or that her ties to Russia were insufficient.

The applicant, a citizen of China claiming fear of persecution by the Public Security Bureau due to her involvement in the Church of the Almighty God, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing her appeal.

The RAD found insufficient evidence to establish she was a genuine practitioner of the faith, noting her superficial religious knowledge.

The Federal Court held that the RAD's assessment was reasonable, as it appropriately weighed her testimony against objective evidence of the Church's tenets and practices.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness brought a motion within ongoing child protection proceedings, seeking disclosure of case documents and the right to make submissions regarding a final supervision order.

This was prompted by an existing deportation order against the mother and one child, which is stayed if the Minister has an opportunity to make submissions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, the mother, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer opposed the extent of the Minister's requested involvement, arguing for limited submissions and no disclosure.

The court found it had jurisdiction, either explicitly under the Family Law Rules or implicitly, to order disclosure to a non-party.

It ruled that the Minister was entitled to make informed and meaningful submissions on all relevant issues, including whether a genuine lis existed between the parties, and ordered the society to provide past and future relevant documents, with strict conditions on their use to protect privacy.

The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the rejection of their refugee claims based on the principal applicant's sexual orientation.

The RAD refused to admit new evidence under subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, concluding that the legal opinion offered was not new and similar submissions had been made before the RPD.

The RAD also upheld numerous credibility findings made by the RPD despite recognizing the challenges in establishing sexual orientation under SOGIE Guidelines.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting that it correctly applied the test for new evidence and properly refused to reweigh credibility findings.

The applicant sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing her permanent residence application under the Federal Skilled Worker program.

The officer concluded that the applicant had failed to disclose her use of an unauthorized representative (a ghost consultant) and was therefore untruthful.

The Federal Court found no breach of procedural fairness regarding the interview process.

However, the Court held the decision was unreasonable because the officer failed to justify the conclusion that the applicant was lying, especially given her undisputed professional and language abilities, and the lack of conclusive evidence that the consultant provided services beyond translation and logistics.

The application was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicants, a Tamil mother and daughter from Sri Lanka who had been granted refugee status in Mexico, sought judicial review of a CBSA officer's decision refusing to defer their removal to Mexico pending a decision on their H&C application.

The Court found the officer's decision unreasonable as the officer failed to properly assess the principal applicant's psychological medical evidence, required the applicants to provide country documentation personally naming them, and improperly dismissed statistics on H&C processing times as speculative.

The application for judicial review was granted.