Immigration Law

The appellant challenged the constitutionality of s. 3 of Quebec's Reduced Contribution Regulation, which excluded refugee claimants from eligibility for subsidized childcare.

The majority found the provision created an adverse impact distinction based on sex and on refugee claimant status (an analogous ground under s. 15(1) of the Charter), and that this distinction was discriminatory as it reinforced disadvantage.

The infringement was not justified under s. 1.

The Court read refugee claimants into s. 3 of the Regulation as an eligible category.

One justice dissented, concluding neither sex-based nor refugee-claimant-status-based discrimination was established.

The applicant, a minor claiming to be a citizen of Ghana, applied for judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting his refugee claim.

The RPD found the applicant's identity documents—a birth certificate, health card, and school records—were inauthentic based on objective evidence and inconsistencies in his testimony.

The Federal Court held the RPD's assessment of the evidence was reasonable, noting the applicant failed to establish his identity on a balance of probabilities.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision denying his refugee claim based on the availability of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Jordan.

He argued the RAD misunderstood evidence regarding tribal threats and overlooked his Palestinian ethnicity in assessing employment prospects.

The Federal Court found that while the RAD misstated some testimony, these imperfections were not significant enough to render the decision unreasonable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing his application for a temporary resident visa to visit his wife and newborn child in Canada.

The officer refused the application based on insufficient assets and failure to establish the origin of funds.

The Federal Court held the decision was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Pre-removal Risk Assessment decision finding they had an Internal Flight Alternative in Colombia and were not persons in need of protection.

The applicants argued the officer unreasonably assessed the Internal Flight Alternative and made veiled credibility findings without holding a hearing.

The Federal Court held the officer's findings on the Internal Flight Alternative were reasonable and that the noted discrepancies were factual observations rather than veiled credibility findings.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a negative pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).

The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh and former member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

He argued that recent Bangladeshi media reports covering his previous Federal Court decision increased his risk profile.

The PRRA officer gave the media reports little weight due to factual inaccuracies and lack of detail about the applicant's specific political activities.

The Federal Court held the officer's treatment of the media reports was unreasonable, noting that the reports were submitted to show how agents of persecution might perceive the applicant, not for their factual accuracy.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant, a Cameroonian citizen residing in Dubai as a temporary worker, sought judicial review of a visa officer's refusal of her Canadian work permit application.

The officer refused the application based on insufficient financial establishment, limited ties to her home country, and the temporary nature of her status in Dubai, concluding she would not leave Canada at the end of her stay.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision reasonable and consistent with procedural fairness requirements.

The Court held the officer was not required to provide a procedural fairness letter as the concerns arose directly from the legislative requirements.

The applicant, an Iranian citizen, sought judicial review of an immigration officer's refusal of his work permit application under the International Mobility Program (C11 exemption) to sell medical equipment in Canada.

The officer refused the application on several grounds, including failure to demonstrate the stay would be temporary, contradictory business plan details, insufficient evidence of significant economic benefit to Canada, and inadequate English language abilities.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision reasonable, transparent, and justified, dismissing the judicial review.

The applicant, a citizen of South Korea, was issued a one-year exclusion order by a minister's delegate after an interview at the border, on the basis that he sought to enter Canada permanently without a visa.

The applicant had previously held permanent resident status but abandoned it, returning for extended visits.

During the interview, he stated he was considering applying for permanent resident status or a super visa.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the delegate's decision unreasonable.

The Court held the delegate ignored the applicant's history of compliance and erroneously concluded that an intent to become a permanent resident meant the applicant would not leave at the end of his authorized stay, contrary to the dual intent provisions in subsection 22(2) of the IRPA.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) finding that his refugee claim had no credible basis.

The RPD found significant inconsistencies and omissions in the applicant's evidence regarding his delayed claim and core allegations of persecution in India.

The Federal Court concluded the RPD's assessment was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

The RAD found the principal applicant faced no prospective risk in Venezuela, and her daughters were excluded from protection under s. 98 of the IRPA due to their permanent resident status or ability to obtain it in Chile.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting the applicants' challenges were primarily economic and the daughters did not face persecution in Chile.

The Court dismissed the application and declined to certify a question regarding post-hearing country condition evidence.

The applicants, a family from Colombia, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting their refugee claim based on credibility findings.

The RPD found inconsistencies and implausibilities in their account of threats from armed groups, leading to negative inferences.

The Federal Court concluded that the RPD's credibility assessment was reasonable and that there was no breach of procedural fairness in failing to confront the applicants with contradictions in the evidence they provided.

The Principal Applicant, an Iranian citizen, applied for a work permit under the C11 entrepreneur category to establish a machinery maintenance business in Alberta.

A visa officer refused the application, finding the Principal Applicant lacked operational management experience, raised concerns regarding his financial stability, and found the hiring plan did not demonstrate a significant economic benefit.

On judicial review, the Federal Court found the officer's decision reasonable, noting it was open to the officer to discount the Principal Applicant's experience, question his financial stability, and focus on short-term job creation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant family, citizens of Mexico, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision concluding they had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Merida, Mexico.

The applicants argued the RAD misapplied the IFA test and ignored evidence of ongoing targeting by the Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG).

The Federal Court found the RAD reasonably concluded the CJNG lacked motivation to target the applicants in Merida, as their past targeting was linked to the principal applicant's business ventures.

The Court also held the RAD reasonably determined relocation would not cause undue hardship since the principal applicant could find alternative employment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division dismissing his appeal from the refusal of his spousal sponsorship application.

The IAD had found a prior conjugal relationship existed between the applicant and the sponsored person before the applicant came to Canada, engaging section 4.1 of the Regulations.

The Federal Court found the IAD's decision unreasonable for failing to apply a flexible approach to assessing the relationship, allowed the application for judicial review, and remitted the matter for redetermination.

The applicant, a citizen of Colombia, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) finding him inadmissible to Canada for organized criminality under paragraphs 37(1)(a) and (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The IAD concluded that the applicant had engaged in criminal activities as part of a pattern of organized criminal activity and transnational crime, and that his defence of duress failed due to significant credibility issues.

The Federal Court held that the IAD's negative credibility findings, based on multiple contradictions regarding important elements of his narrative, were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing her appeal from the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).

She claimed fear of persecution from her former husband's gang in Jamaica.

The RAD found insufficient evidence of the gang's existence or her husband's involvement, and no forward-looking risk.

The applicant argued the RAD failed to properly apply gender guidelines to explain omissions in her narrative.

The Federal Court held the RAD reasonably assessed the evidence and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, a citizen of Turkey, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision excluding him from refugee protection under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention.

The RPD found the applicant complicit in crimes against humanity committed by the Gendarmerie in Turkey, based on his voluntary and significant administrative contributions despite knowledge of the crimes.

The Federal Court found the RPD's complicity analysis reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, a former member of the Indian Army, sought judicial review of an Immigration Division decision finding him inadmissible to Canada under section 35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for complicity in crimes against humanity.

The Immigration Division found reasonable grounds to believe the Indian Army committed crimes against humanity during the applicant's service in Jammu and Kashmir, and that he made a voluntary, significant, and knowing contribution to those crimes.

The Federal Court found the decision reasonable, noting the Immigration Division correctly applied the legal tests for crimes against humanity and complicity, and properly assessed the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a CBSA officer's decision finding him ineligible for referral to the Refugee Protection Division under paragraph 101(1)(c.1) of the IRPA.

The officer relied on information shared by the UK under a bilateral agreement, confirming the applicant had made a prior refugee claim there under a different identity.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the provision affords no discretion once a prior claim is confirmed, and that the officer applied the correct standard of proof.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant was given an opportunity to provide documentation clarifying his immigration history but failed to do so.