Bernard Assan

The appellant, a Convention refugee found inadmissible for serious criminality, appealed the dismissal of his application for judicial review of the Minister’s refusal to accede to a United Nations Human Rights Committee request to hold his removal in abeyance pending consideration of his communication.

The court held that the refusal was a pure exercise of Crown prerogative in the sphere of international relations, not a statutory decision under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and was therefore within the Superior Court’s concurrent jurisdiction and was justiciable because it directly affected an individual’s life and safety.

Applying reasonableness review, the court held that no reasons were required because the interim measures request was addressed by an international body to Canada, not to the appellant, and no domestic statute or settled practice imposed a duty to give reasons.

The court further held that the Minister had the relevant factual material before him, including submissions concerning the appellant’s mental health and risks on return, and that the refusal was not unreasonable in light of the domestic-law framework in Suresh governing the non-refoulement exception for dangerous refugees.

The appeal was dismissed, the respondent’s jurisdiction and justiciability arguments failed, no costs were ordered, and the removal order was stayed for 60 days.

The applicant sought an interim order to enjoin the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness from deporting him to Somalia pending determination of his motion for leave to appeal and, if leave is granted, his appeal of a Superior Court decision dismissing his application for judicial review.

The applicant challenged the Minister's decision to remove him despite an Interim Measures Request from the United Nations Human Rights Committee requesting that removal be placed in abeyance.

The motion judge granted the interim order, finding that the applicant met all three prongs of the RJR-MacDonald test: a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if deported before appeal, and a balance of convenience favouring the extension of the injunction.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness' decision to refuse an Interim Measures Request (IMR) from the United Nations Human Rights Committee and proceed with the applicant's removal to Somalia.

The applicant, a permanent resident with serious mental health issues and criminal convictions, had been found inadmissible to Canada and subject to a deportation order.

The court addressed justiciability and jurisdiction, finding concurrent jurisdiction between the Ontario Superior Court and Federal Court over Crown prerogative matters.

The court found the Minister's decision reasonable and not requiring reasons, as it involved an exercise of Crown prerogative regarding international treaty obligations that are not binding on Canada domestically.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness sought judicial review of two decisions of the Immigration Division ordering the release of the respondent, who had been detained pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The ID had found that the respondent's harsh conditions of detention, including prolonged isolation during a COVID-19 outbreak, warranted his release, despite acknowledging he posed a danger to the public and a flight risk.

The Federal Court allowed the applications for judicial review, finding that while the ID's assessment of the factors favouring release was not unreasonable, its failure to impose conditions to mitigate the danger the respondent posed to the public made the release decisions unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Immigration Division decision refusing to order the Minister to disclose communications with South Sudanese officials regarding the issuance of travel documents.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding that the Immigration Division breached procedural fairness by disregarding the disclosure obligations established in Brown.

The Court ordered the Minister to disclose the communications and reassess other evidence in its possession for relevance.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for permanent residence under the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada class due to criminal inadmissibility.

The applicant alleged procedural fairness was breached because the officer failed to consider a request for an extension of time to file a rehabilitation application, which he claimed was sent via email.

The Court held that the applicant failed to establish that the extension request was properly received and pending before the officer, noting the lack of identifiers on the email, the absence of acknowledgement, and the lack of follow-up.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a 23-year-old citizen of India, sought judicial review of the refusal of his study permit application to attend an English as a Second Language and business program in Canada.

The visa officer refused the application, finding the proposed studies unreasonable given the cost and local options, and concluding the applicant was not a bona fide student who would leave Canada at the end of his stay.

The Federal Court held that the officer breached procedural fairness by making a veiled credibility finding about the genuineness of the application without providing an opportunity to respond.

The Court also found the decision unreasonable because the officer's rationale failed to meaningfully account for the evidence or provide a rational chain of analysis for why the applicant's personal circumstances, academic history, or the cost of the program rendered the study plan unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The appellant, a Jamaican citizen and former permanent resident of Canada, was detained for five years by the Canada Border Services Agency pending removal to Jamaica following a removal order based on serious criminality.

The appellant brought a habeas corpus application and sought Charter damages under sections 7, 9, and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his detention was arbitrary, indefinite, and constituted cruel and unusual treatment.

The application judge dismissed the Charter damages claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no breach of the Charter rights and clarifying that Charter damages claims cannot be joined to habeas corpus applications.

Following a successful habeas corpus application resulting in his release from immigration detention, the applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent opposed the quantum, arguing the applicant should have pursued judicial review in Federal Court.

The court found that the respondent had treated the matter as a test case to defend the jurisdiction of the Immigration Division, despite agreeing the applicant should be released.

The court awarded the applicant his full requested costs of $61,760.50 on a partial indemnity scale pursuant to section 24(1) of the Charter and Rule 57.01.

The applicant, a refugee claimant, sought a writ of habeas corpus to be released from immigration detention after being held for 17 months.

The detention was based on a series of alleged breaches of release conditions that were either inadvertent or based on errors by police and immigration authorities.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that the continued detention lacked a valid purpose, was arbitrary, and violated the principles of fundamental justice under sections 7 and 9 of the Charter.

The court held that the Immigration Division's deference to the Canada Border Services Agency in determining breaches constituted procedural unfairness.

The appellant, facing deportation to St. Lucia, obtained an unopposed custody order and a non-removal order for her children under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The non-removal order was intended to trigger a statutory stay of her deportation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The respondent Ministers successfully appealed the non-removal order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that family courts should not issue non-removal orders solely to frustrate federal immigration removal orders where there is no genuine family law dispute.