David Matas

On a motion to strike a constitutional application challenging Ontario's funding of Roman Catholic and public schools to the exclusion of Jewish day schools and other independent faith-based schools, the court held it was not plain and obvious that the applicants could not satisfy the Bedford and Carter threshold for revisiting binding precedent.

The court found a reasonable prospect that changes in constitutional interpretation, state neutrality, international law, minority-rights jurisprudence, and the amendment adding s. 93A could fundamentally shift the parameters of the debate as against Ontario.

The claim against Canada was struck because education funding is a provincial matter, Canada had taken no impugned legislative action, and unincorporated treaty obligations were not directly enforceable against it in this proceeding.

The motion therefore succeeded only in part.

The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision refusing his application for a permanent resident visa in Canada as a member of the Convention Refugee Abroad Class or the Humanitarian Protected Persons Abroad Designated Class.

The applicant claimed to be stateless but identified Iran as his home country.

He fled from Denmark where his refugee claim was rejected.

An officer rejected his application, finding he had no well-founded fear of persecution in Iraq and did not assess fear in Iran.

The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to account for evidence that Danish authorities intended to remove the applicant to Iran, and unreasonably accepted his assertion of statelessness without inquiring about his eligibility for Iranian citizenship.

The applicant, a citizen of Ghana, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissing his appeal.

The RAD upheld the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the applicant failed to establish his identity due to unreliable documentation, including conflicting birth certificates.

The applicant also challenged the RAD's decision not to hold an oral hearing and sought to introduce new affidavit evidence on judicial review.

The Federal Court found the new affidavit inadmissible as it did not fit within the exceptions for new evidence on judicial review.

Applying the reasonableness standard, the Court held that the RAD reasonably concluded the applicant failed to discharge his burden to prove his identity.

The Court further found it was reasonable for the RAD to deny an oral hearing under s. 110(6) of the IRPA, as the new evidence did not raise a serious issue with respect to credibility that would justify allowing or rejecting the claim.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of Ghana, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming that he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

The applicant feared persecution based on his sexual orientation, but the RAD dismissed his appeal on credibility grounds.

On judicial review, the applicant did not challenge the credibility findings but argued the RAD failed to assess his risk based on perceived sexuality.

The Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to explicitly raise the issue of perceived sexuality before the RAD, and that the RAD was not required to address it given the negative credibility findings.

The applicant, a citizen of Ghana who claims to be bisexual, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal.

The RAD upheld the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the applicant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies in his evidence regarding his sexuality.

On judicial review, the applicant argued the RAD erred by failing to consider his perceived sexuality and a risk posed by a group called the Land Guards.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the RAD reasonably did not consider these issues because the applicant failed to raise them in his appeal to the RAD.

The applicants, citizens of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a PRRA officer's decision refusing their application.

The officer found that the applicants had not provided sufficient evidence to show a change in country conditions or personalized risk since their refugee claim was rejected on the basis of an internal flight alternative in Lagos.

The Federal Court held that the officer's reliance on the US DOS Report and finding that there had not been a significant change in country conditions was reasonable.

The Court dismissed the application.

The applicants applied for judicial review of a decision refusing their permanent residence application as privately sponsored refugees.

The application was refused because the applicants failed to respond to a request for their UNHCR ProGres Case Number to verify their refugee status.

The applicants alleged they did not receive the request letter, constituting a breach of procedural fairness.

The Federal Court found that the respondent established the letter was sent to the provided email addresses, shifting the risk of non-delivery to the applicants.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) that dismissed their appeal of the Refugee Protection Division's decision finding they were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

The applicants fled Mexico due to threats from the principal applicant's brother-in-law and individuals associated with a local gang.

The RAD upheld the finding that the applicants had viable internal flight alternatives in Mexico City and Mérida.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unreasonable because it failed to meaningfully analyze the risk posed by the family members and did not explain its reasoning concerning the agents of harm.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for re-determination.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave and judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision.

The RAD had confirmed the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the applicant was excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(b) for committing a serious non-political crime outside Canada.

The applicant argued the delay was due to obtaining new counsel and waiting for legal aid.

The Court found the applicant failed to meet the four-part test for an extension of time, noting that waiting for legal aid is not a reasonable explanation for delay and the proposed application lacked merit.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Immigration Division denying their request to adjourn admissibility proceedings pending the resolution of related criminal charges.

The applicants argued that proceeding with the admissibility hearing would violate their Charter rights against self-incrimination, placing them in the position of having to testify voluntarily and waive derivative use immunity.

The Federal Court found exceptional circumstances to intervene before a final decision, given the potential irremediable harm to their Charter rights.

However, the Court dismissed the judicial review, holding that the Immigration Division reasonably refused the adjournment.

The potential use of derivative evidence was deemed speculative, and alternative mechanisms existed under the IRPA to protect confidentiality.

The applicants, a Nigerian family, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision upholding the rejection of their refugee claims.

They alleged a fear of persecution from the father's family, who threatened to subject the eldest daughter to female genital mutilation.

The RAD found they had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in another Nigerian city and refused to admit new evidence regarding ongoing risks in Lagos.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's assessment of the IFA and its refusal to admit irrelevant new evidence to be reasonable under the Vavilov framework.

The applicant sought judicial review of a migration officer's decision refusing her application for a permanent resident visa as a Convention refugee abroad.

The application for leave and judicial review was filed one month late due to counsel's failure to recognize and respond to instructions.

The Federal Court refused to grant an extension of time, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay and no potential merit to the application, as the officer reasonably found the applicant lacked credibility due to multiple contradictory dates in her evidence.

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the Refugee Protection Division's finding that he is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

The determinative issue was the existence of an Internal Flight Alternative in either Port Harcourt or Ibadan.

The applicant argued the decision was incoherent because the risk in his home area of Lagos was not first assessed.

The Federal Court held that a finding of an internal flight alternative can stand alone, and the tribunal is not required to first determine persecution in the home area.

Finding the RAD's IFA analysis reasonable, the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant applied for permanent residence under the Manitoba provincial nominee program based on her experience as a poultry inspector.

At her interview, the visa officer asked questions about inspecting raw poultry, which the applicant could not answer as her previous job did not involve raw poultry.

After the officer expressed concerns about misrepresentation, the applicant became upset, and the officer ended the interview abruptly.

The officer then found the applicant inadmissible for misrepresentation.

On judicial review, the Federal Court held that the officer breached the duty of procedural fairness by not providing the applicant an adequate opportunity to respond to the concerns and clarify her work experience.

The application for judicial review was allowed.

The applicant, a 33-year-old citizen of Somalia with a history of mental health issues and a criminal record, applied for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) after his refugee claim was rejected due to criminal inadmissibility.

The PRRA officer denied the application, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant would be targeted by Al Shabaab or faced a personalized risk in Somalia.

On judicial review, the Federal Court held the decision was unreasonable because the officer failed to meaningfully consider and explain the rejection of evidence regarding the applicant's bipolar disorder and resulting vulnerability.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicant, a citizen of Honduras, sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the RPD's refusal of her refugee claim based on the availability of an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA).

She argued the RAD failed to clearly articulate the standard of proof and omitted relevant factors such as the size of Honduras and gender-specific country conditions.

The Federal Court found that the RAD correctly set out and applied the proper standard of proof, and its factual findings regarding the IFA were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought to extend the time to appeal an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that dismissed his application for judicial review on the grounds that it was frivolous and vexatious.

The application for judicial review had sought mandamus requiring the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada to produce its decision limiting the number of qualifying exams each candidate is allowed.

The motion judge dismissed the motion on jurisdictional grounds, finding that the Court of Appeal for Ontario lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court on an interlocutory motion.

The proper route of appeal is to a panel of the Divisional Court under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant sought judicial review of a letter from the Pharmacy Examining Board of Canada denying his request to write the pharmacist qualification examination for a fifth time.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the letter was not a reviewable decision but merely a statement of the existing rule limiting attempts.

The court also rejected the applicant's arguments that the Act creating the Board and the rule limiting examination attempts were ultra vires, noting that the Board does not regulate the profession but merely administers an examination that provincial licensing bodies may use.

The complainant, a Falun Gong practitioner, alleged that the respondents discriminated against her with respect to services because of her creed by making discriminatory comments and excluding her from membership in the Ottawa Chinese Senior Association.

The Tribunal found that Falun Gong is a 'creed' and that the Association provides a 'service' within the meaning of the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents breached the Code by revoking the complainant's membership because of her creed and by making discriminatory comments.

The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and to invite the complainant to rejoin the Association.

The appellants, permanent residents ordered deported for serious criminality, appealed their removal orders under the former Immigration Act, triggering automatic stays.

Before their appeals were heard, the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) came into force.

Section 196 of the IRPA discontinued pending appeals for serious criminals unless they had been 'granted a stay'.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that 'granted a stay' refers only to actively ordered stays, not automatic statutory stays.

Applying principles of bilingual statutory interpretation, the Court found the narrower English version aligned with Parliament's intent to expedite the removal of serious criminals.

The Court also dismissed arguments that the retroactive removal of the appeal right violated section 7 of the Charter, concluding that deportation does not inherently implicate section 7 interests and the transitional scheme did not breach principles of fundamental justice.