3 total
Inadmissibility for smuggling requires organized transnational crime and material benefit.
Consolidated immigration appeals considered whether inadmissibility for people smuggling under s. 37(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act captures all assistance to undocumented migrants or is limited by organized transnational criminality and material benefit.
The Court held the provision applies only where conduct furthers illegal entry for direct or indirect financial or other material benefit in the context of transnational organized crime.
Humanitarian and mutual aid, including assistance among asylum-seekers in collective flight to safety, does not itself constitute people smuggling under this provision.
The prior inadmissibility determinations were based on an unreasonable statutory interpretation and were remitted for reconsideration on the proper legal test.
Human rights applications dismissed under s. 45.1 as the substance was already decided by the CIRB.
The applicant filed human rights applications alleging discrimination based on race, colour, and ethnic origin regarding his suspension as financial secretary and removal of signing authority by the respondent unions.
The respondents requested dismissal under s. 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing the matter was already dealt with by the Canada Industrial Relations Board (CIRB).
The Tribunal found that the CIRB proceeding appropriately dealt with the substance of the applications, as the CIRB had already determined the applicant did not experience discrimination under the broader definition in the Canada Labour Code.
The applications were dismissed.
Tribunal grants publication ban for sexual assault claimants but requires signed consent for union representation.
The union brought a human rights application on behalf of a group of temporary foreign workers alleging wage discrimination and sexual harassment by the respondents.
In this interim decision, the Tribunal addressed preliminary issues.
The Tribunal granted a publication ban and anonymization for claimants alleging sexual assault, but denied the respondents' request to anonymize their own names.
The Tribunal also held that the union could not bring the application on behalf of individuals who had not signed a consent form, as required by section 34(5) of the Human Rights Code, rejecting the union's argument that consent could be inferred from its status as collective bargaining representative.
