Andrea Mauti

The applicants sought an order staying their removal from Canada to Nigeria pending a judicial review of an enforcement officer's decision denying their request for a deferral of removal.

While the Court found that the officer had erred in assessing the medical evidence regarding the associate applicant's fitness to fly, thereby raising a serious issue, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm.

They did not provide sufficient evidence of their mental health conditions or demonstrate that required medical treatment would be unavailable in Nigeria.

The request for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of her removal to Kenya pending three applications for judicial review related to the refusal of her pre-removal risk assessment and humanitarian and compassionate applications, as well as a deemed refusal of a deferral request.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, concluding that the applicant had not established that she would be exposed to irreparable harm upon returning to Kenya, as the internal flight alternative finding remained undisturbed and the alleged risks regarding gender discrimination and mental health were insufficiently supported by the evidence before the officer.

The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision upholding the RPD's finding that they are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

The RAD concluded the applicants had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in India.

The Court found the RAD's analysis of the IFA test, including its finding that local police lacked the motivation to pursue the applicants in the proposed IFAs, to be reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of Albania, applied for a temporary resident visa (TRV) to visit his brother in Canada for one month.

A visa officer refused the application under subsection 179(b) of the IRPR, concluding that the applicant provided insufficient financial details and had weak emotional ties to Albania.

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding that the officer failed to consider significant evidence of the applicant's establishment in Albania, including business ownership and property.

The decision was set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for permanent residence based on inadmissibility due to misrepresentation, criminality, and serious criminality.

The refusal resulted from his failure to disclose prior UK criminal convictions on his application.

The applicant alleged ineffective assistance by his former counsel, who advised him to answer "No" to the criminality question after seeing a UK Police Certificate stating "No Live Trace." The Federal Court found that former counsel's failure to investigate the meaning of "No Live Trace" and subsequent failure to provide proper legal advice regarding the applicant's criminal history fell markedly below the standard of reasonable professional assistance.

This failure resulted in actual prejudice, as the applicant would not have proceeded with the application in the same manner had he been properly advised.

The application for judicial review was allowed, and the refusal decision was set aside.

The applicant, a citizen of Jamaica claiming persecution based on sexual orientation, sought judicial review of a RAD decision dismissing her appeal of a negative RPD determination.

The RPD and RAD found that material inconsistencies in her testimony, particularly regarding her family relationships and threats received, undermined her overall credibility and failed to establish her profile as a lesbian or bisexual individual.

The Federal Court held that the RAD reasonably relied on the RPD's credibility assessments, as the applicant could not satisfactorily explain the inconsistencies between her testimony and basis of claim narrative.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming they were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection because they had an internal flight alternative in Mexico.

The primary applicant was a 15-year-old who feared persecution due to her sexual orientation.

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD failed to meaningfully grapple with the adolescent's circumstances, her documented history of anxiety, and the SOGIE Guidelines.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the refusal of their refugee claims.

The RAD found the principal applicant had a viable internal flight alternative in Abuja, Nigeria, and that the associate applicants had not established a risk of persecution or harm in India.

The Federal Court held the RAD's assessment was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, a 14-year-old Iranian citizen, sought judicial review of a visa officer's refusal of her study permit application.

The officer refused the application based on family ties in Canada and Iran, and the purpose of the visit, noting the applicant was single, mobile, and had no dependents.

The applicant also raised the issue of dual intent, as her father was pursuing a permanent residence application.

The Federal Court found the officer's analysis of family ties unreasonable because it failed to consider the applicant's substantial ties to Iran and lack of ties to Canada, rendering the decision unintelligible.

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

The applicant sought a stay of removal to Trinidad and Tobago so that he could attend a medical appointment for a facial fracture.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the elevated threshold for a serious issue regarding the reasonableness of the deferral decision, did not establish irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favored the respondent.

The applicants, citizens of China, sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicants argued that the officer failed to properly consider the best interests of their Canadian-born children, specifically the hardship they would face in China without a Hukou due to their dual nationality.

The Federal Court found that the officer erred by failing to address this explicit argument.

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

The parties settled a construction lien dispute regarding painting work for $30,000, but could not agree on costs.

The defendants' offer to settle did not explicitly mention costs.

The plaintiff sought costs up to the date of the offer's acceptance under Rule 49.07(5)(a), while the defendants argued they were entitled to costs because the plaintiff delayed acceptance until after motion preparation was done.

The court found the plaintiff was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, as the offer was never withdrawn and the defendants were not successful in the litigation.

The court awarded the plaintiff $8,500 in costs.