7 total
Judicial review of CERB ineligibility decision dismissed as CRA reasonably assessed the $1,000 income cap.
The applicant, a retired Costco employee, sought judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) decision finding him ineligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) for periods 2-4 in 2020.
The CRA concluded that he earned more than the $1,000 income cap during those periods.
The applicant argued the payments were for work completed prior to the pandemic.
The Court found the CRA's assessment of the income cap reasonable and dismissed the application.
Judicial review granted; unreasonable CRA COVID-19 benefit denials quashed and remitted for redetermination.
The applicant sought judicial review of Canada Revenue Agency decisions denying him the Canada Recovery Benefit and Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit based on an alleged failure to meet the income threshold.
The respondent conceded the decisions were unreasonable and lacked justification.
The applicant requested a substituted decision ordering payment of the benefits, arguing previous remittals had been unfruitful.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, quashed the decisions, and remitted the matter for redetermination, declining to issue a substituted decision because the outcome was not inevitable.
Judicial review dismissed; RAD reasonably found the Netherlands offers adequate state protection despite gender and racial discrimination.
The applicants, a mother and her three children, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their refugee claim.
The principal applicant, a dual citizen of Eritrea and the Netherlands, fled an abusive ex-husband in the Netherlands but did not seek police protection.
The RAD upheld the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the Netherlands could provide adequate state protection and that it was unreasonable for the principal applicant not to seek it.
The Federal Court found the RAD reasonably applied the Gender Guideline and reasonably assessed the objective evidence of country conditions, concluding the decision was justified, intelligible, and transparent.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Judicial review of incomplete sponsorship application return is justiciable, but decision was reasonable and procedurally fair.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision returning her application to sponsor her mother under the Parents and Grandparents Program as incomplete.
IRCC had issued a procedural fairness letter advising that information about step-children was missing from the IMM 5406 forms and providing 30 days to respond.
The applicant submitted updated forms, but the information was still missing, leading to the application's return as unprocessed.
The Federal Court found the matter justiciable, rejecting the respondent's argument that returning an incomplete application is categorically unreviewable.
However, the Court dismissed the application on the merits, finding the officer's determination of incompleteness was reasonable and procedurally fair, as the applicant was given an opportunity to provide the missing information but failed to do so.
Judicial review granted as RAD unreasonably assessed the applicant's sur place claim and residual profile.
The applicant, a national of Cameroon and supporter of the Anglophone separatist movement, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision refusing his refugee claim.
The RAD had found his documents regarding past persecution fraudulent but accepted he participated in protests in Canada.
The Federal Court found the RAD's assessment of his sur place risk unreasonable for failing to address contradictory objective evidence about the treatment of returning asylum seekers.
The Court also found the RAD's residual profile risk assessment internally incoherent.
The application for judicial review was granted.
Judicial review granted; Final Authority decision unreasonable for failing to engage with applicant's submissions.
The applicant, a Canadian Armed Forces officer, sought judicial review of a Final Authority decision dismissing her grievance regarding her removal from a training course.
The Final Authority issued a three-sentence decision adopting the Initial Authority's reasoning, but failed to engage with the applicant's detailed 13-page appeal submissions.
The Federal Court held the decision was unreasonable because it lacked justification and failed to demonstrate that the decision-maker listened to the parties.
Judicial review application regarding deferral of removal dismissed as moot.
The applicants, citizens of the Bahamas, sought judicial review of a decision refusing their request to defer their removal from Canada until the end of the school year.
The date for the requested deferral had passed by the time the application was scheduled to be heard.
The Federal Court found the application moot and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the case, noting no valid purpose would be served and the applicants could make a fresh request if rescheduled for removal.
