Helen Park

The applicant sought judicial review of an immigration officer's decision refusing a study permit.

The applicant applied from within Canada after completing an online English prerequisite course.

The officer refused the application on the basis that the prerequisite course was completed outside the initial six-month authorized stay, citing paragraph 188(1)(c) of the Regulations.

The Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer improperly imported the six-month limitation into subparagraph 215(1)(f)(iii) and failed to address whether the applicant's online distance learning required a study permit or fell under the cited Program Delivery Instructions.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) brought a motion for special costs after discontinuing its Charter challenge against the National Defence Act due to the passage of Bill C-59, which largely addressed its concerns.

The Federal Court found that while the litigation was not the sole catalyst for the legislative change and full indemnity was not warranted, the case raised significant constitutional issues of public interest.

The Court awarded the BCCLA a lump sum of $175,000 in special costs, plus disbursements and costs of the motion.

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

The RPD and RAD found that the applicant failed to establish his identity as an Eritrean national and that his evidence was not credible.

The Federal Court found that the RAD reasonably assessed the evidence, including concluding that a submitted birth certificate was not genuine and assigning little weight to vague support letters.

The Court held that the RAD's credibility findings and ultimate determination on identity were reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) finding him inadmissible to Canada due to membership in the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

The applicant argued that the IAD breached procedural fairness by making a credibility finding without an oral hearing and that its weighing of evidence was unreasonable.

The Federal Court held that the IAD did not breach procedural fairness as the applicant's counsel agreed to proceed in writing and did not call witnesses.

The Court also found the IAD's decision reasonable, noting a broad interpretation of "member" and sufficient evidence of the applicant declaring himself a demobilized FARC member to receive benefits.