Hillary Adams

The respondent sought an extension of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity of certain provisions of the Citizenship Act.

The declaration was originally suspended for six months from December 19, 2023, and has been extended multiple times.

The respondent sought an extension to January 20, 2026 (reduced from April 22, 2026 by consent).

The court granted a two-month extension to January 20, 2026, noting significant progress in enacting replacement legislation with a reasonable expectation that it may come into force by the end of 2025.

The court adjourned the balance of the motion to January 13, 2026.

The respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, sought a 12-month extension of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity regarding the first-generation limit on derivative citizenship in the Citizenship Act.

The court had previously declared the provisions unconstitutional under sections 6 and 15 of the Charter but suspended the declaration to allow Parliament to pass remedial legislation.

Due to the recent prorogation and dissolution of Parliament for a general election, the government was unable to pass the remedial bill.

The court granted a shorter extension of the suspension to November 20, 2025, balancing the need for Parliament to address the complex legislative scheme against the ongoing rights violations of affected individuals.

The moving party brought an urgent motion seeking a further three-month extension of the suspension of a declaration of invalidity regarding sections of the Citizenship Act.

The court previously found the limits on derivative citizenship unconstitutional and suspended the declaration to allow Parliament to pass remedial legislation.

Despite finding that the government had not acted with sufficient diligence in advancing the replacement bill, the court reluctantly granted the extension to March 19, 2025, balancing the public interest in having replacement legislation, the complexity of the citizenship regime, and the potential for chaos if the unconstitutional law was struck down without a replacement.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

The Attorney General of Canada brought an urgent motion seeking a six-month extension of a suspended declaration of invalidity concerning sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) of the Citizenship Act, which were previously found unconstitutional for limiting derivative citizenship.

The applicants opposed the extension or sought conditions.

The court granted a shorter extension until August 9, 2024, with a further hearing scheduled for August 1, 2024, to review progress on remedial legislation (Bill C-71) and an improved plan for addressing hardship cases.

The court also ordered that constitutional exemptions be granted to other first-generation born abroad applicants.

This decision provides supplementary reasons to a constitutional application that previously found s. 3(3)(a) of the Citizenship Act unconstitutional for creating a second-generation cut-off for citizenship by descent.

The court clarifies and amends its prior order, extending the declaration of invalidity to s. 3(3)(b) of the Act, which also imposes a second-generation cut-off for those born before 1977.

It also amends the constitutional exemptions granted to specific applicants and their children, including those born after the initial hearing, and extends the deadline for issuing citizenship certificates due to logistical issues.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the 'second-generation cut-off' in s. 3(3)(a) of the Citizenship Act, which prevents Canadian citizens born abroad from automatically passing citizenship to their children born abroad.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the provision violates s. 15(1) of the Charter by discriminating on the basis of national origin and the intersection of national origin and sex.

The court also found a violation of s. 6(1) mobility rights, as the law penalizes first-generation born abroad Canadians for choosing to live and work abroad.

The violations were not saved by s. 1.

The court declared the provision of no force or effect, suspended the declaration for six months, and granted constitutional exemptions to specific applicants, but denied Charter damages.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness brought a motion for a stay of a decision by the Immigration Division ordering the release of the respondent, who had a significant criminal history including gang-related offences, from immigration detention.

The respondent was deemed a danger to the public and a flight risk.

The reviewing court found the Minister met the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay, noting serious issues with the reasonableness of the release conditions, which failed to virtually eliminate the danger to the public.

Irreparable harm to the public interest was established, and the balance of convenience favoured the Minister.

The motion for a stay was granted pending an expedited judicial review.

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision denying her refugee claim while allowing that of her minor son, who has autism.

The claims were based on threats from the applicant's in-laws regarding a ritual cleansing for her son.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unreasonable on two grounds: first, it failed to engage with affidavit evidence showing the in-laws were willing to use force to locate the applicant; second, it improperly assessed the mother's risk independently of her son's, ignoring the inextricable link between their claims.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

The applicants sought judicial review of a RAD decision upholding a RPD finding that they were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

The applicants argued the RPD breached procedural fairness, mischaracterized persecution as discrimination, and erred in assessing credibility.

The Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting insufficient evidence of bias or procedural fairness breaches, and upheld the findings on persecution and credibility.

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought refugee protection based on his sexual orientation.

The Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Division rejected his claim on credibility grounds, finding it implausible that he hid from police for months while still attending work daily at the same bank.

The RAD also assigned low weight to supporting affidavits and found his residual evidence of involvement in the LGBTIQ community in Canada too vague.

The Federal Court applied the Vavilov framework, held the credibility inferences and evidentiary weighting were reasonable, and dismissed the application for judicial review.