David Cranton

Following the granting of the applicant's application for judicial review, the Minister proposed a question for certification under paragraph 74(d) of the IRPA regarding the intent requirement for engaging in terrorism under paragraph 34(1)(c) and admissibility under paragraph 34(1)(f).

The Court declined to certify the question, finding it would not be dispositive of an appeal because it did not address the officer's failure to distinguish between events occurring during or after the applicant's departure from the organization.

The applicant, a former member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), sought judicial review of a Senior Immigration Officer's decision finding him inadmissible to Canada under s. 34(1)(f) of the IRPA for membership in an organization that engages, has engaged, or will engage in terrorism.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable.

The officer improperly relied on evidence of violence occurring after the applicant had ceased to be a member of the BNP without establishing reasonable grounds to believe at the time of his membership that the BNP would engage in terrorism in the future.

The officer also improperly applied a standard of 'foreseeability' rather than the required 'specific intent' to kill or seriously injure civilians when determining if the BNP's actions constituted terrorism.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted to a different officer.

The applicant filed a motion in writing under Rule 397 of the Federal Courts Rules to correct alleged errors or omissions in the Court's earlier reasons on judicial review.

The Court agreed to correct one factual misstatement about the citizenship status of the applicant's mother under Rule 397(2).

However, the Court refused two other proposed changes concerning the characterization of an argument and the evidentiary reasons for filing certain documents, holding that these requests fell outside the narrow scope of Rule 397(1)(b).

The motion was granted in part.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Division decision denying an appeal of an exclusion order made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The exclusion order resulted from a finding of misrepresentation relating to the applicant's permanent residency status and involvement with a fraudulent immigration consulting scheme.

The Federal Court found that the tribunal made cumulative factual errors, including findings about a signed blank form and medical prognosis, which rendered the decision unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, sought judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision dismissing his appeal of a removal order.

The applicant had failed to comply with his residency obligations under section 28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, having spent 0 days in Canada during the relevant five-year period.

The IAD found that the applicant's humanitarian and compassionate grounds, including alleged hardship in Pakistan and desire to study in Canada, were insufficient to overcome his significant non-compliance.

The Federal Court found the IAD's decision reasonable, noting that the applicant had not established any significant errors warranting intervention.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of Cuba, applied for permanent residence sponsored by his mother in Canada under the "lone Canadian" provision, and alternatively requested an exemption on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.

The visa officer denied the applications.

On judicial review, the applicant argued a breach of procedural fairness because the officer assessed the best interests of his non-accompanying child in Cuba without seeking further submissions on the issue.

The applicant also challenged the reasonableness of the officer's assessment of the child's best interests and the mother's mental health evidence.

The Federal Court held that the applicant was aware of the case to meet, as the child's circumstances were raised in the application materials, and had a meaningful opportunity to make submissions.

The Court found no breach of procedural fairness and concluded that the officer's substantive findings regarding the child's best interests and the causes of the mother's mental health issues were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, two brothers from Ethiopia, sought judicial review of negative pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) and humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) decisions.

The Federal Court allowed the applications, finding the PRRA decisions lacked transparency in their assessment of the availability and effectiveness of state protection from the brothers' abusive father in Ethiopia.

The Court also held the H&C decisions were unreasonable because the officer failed to apply the equitable and humanitarian principles of section 25(1) of the IRPA and the Chirwa test, instead assessing the H&C factors in silos, and the best interests of the child analysis was circular.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) finding they were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

The applicants challenged the RPD's negative credibility findings, its handling of the risk they faced in Afghanistan, and its refusal to admit an untranslated document into evidence at the hearing, claiming a breach of natural justice.

The Federal Court held the RPD correctly applied the RPD Rules regarding document translation and that no breach of procedural fairness occurred, as the applicants had experienced counsel who could have sought to admit a translated version post-hearing.

The Court further found the RPD's negative credibility findings were reasonable and justified its conclusion that the applicants lacked objective evidence to support their claims.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.