4 total
Judicial review of inadmissibility finding for misrepresentation on a work permit application dismissed.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision rejecting her work permit application and finding her inadmissible to Canada for misrepresentation.
She had failed to disclose a prior US visa refusal in her application.
The applicant argued that the omission was a clerical error by her consultant and challenged the procedural fairness and reasonableness of the decision.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and holding that the officer's conclusion that the applicant was not truthful was reasonable.
Judicial review of migration officer's refusal of permanent residence application dismissed.
The applicant sought judicial review of a migration officer's decision refusing her permanent residence application as a Convention refugee abroad or member of the country of asylum class.
She argued the officer failed to consider the country of asylum class criteria.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer reasonably considered both classes and appropriately addressed credibility concerns regarding the applicant's lack of subjective fear and personal risk in Iraq.
Judicial review granted because RAD conflated two potential internal flight alternatives, rendering its decision unintelligible.
The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his refugee claim based on the availability of an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Santa Barbara, Honduras.
The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unintelligible because it failed to distinguish between the city of Santa Barbara and the remote farm location in assessing the IFA test.
The application for judicial review was granted and the matter sent back for redetermination.
Costs award amended to be payable directly to counsel in trust rather than the litigant.
The court amended its initial costs decision regarding an unsuccessful Request for Directions under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement.
The initial decision directed Canada to pay costs to the Requestor.
The Requestor's counsel sought an amendment to have the cheque made payable to his law firm in trust, as the Requestor was never intended to be exposed to costs.
The court granted the amendment, directing Canada to issue a new cheque payable to the counsel's professional corporation in trust upon return of the original cheque.