Ian Hicks

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a Senior Immigration Officer refusing her application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.

The applicant, a citizen of Japan, claimed hardship upon return due to past domestic violence and a psychological assessment indicating an ongoing stressor-related disorder.

The Federal Court found the Officer's decision unreasonable, particularly the Officer's dismissal of the psychological assessment based on irrelevant considerations such as it being a single visit requested by counsel.

The Court also held the Officer took an unfairly narrow view of the effects of domestic abuse by assuming the risk to the applicant's mental well-being ended with her abuser's death.

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

The Minister applied for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) granting the respondent permanent resident status on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds despite her failure to meet her residency obligation under section 28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Minister argued that the IAD incorrectly conducted a Best Interests of the Child analysis based on the interests of the respondent's unborn grandchild, which has no interests according to Supreme Court precedent.

The Minister agreed there was no need to reconsider the H&C application, and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissing his appeal of a deportation order for serious criminality.

The applicant had been convicted of sexual interference.

The parties had submitted a joint recommendation for a three-year stay of the removal order.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the IAD's decision unreasonable because it failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the joint recommendation and made contradictory findings regarding the applicant's risk of drug relapse.

The matter was remitted for redetermination.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision finding that frequent lockdowns at Maplehurst Correctional Complex violated the Charter rights of two remanded inmates under section 12 (cruel and unusual treatment).

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge had significantly overstated the frequency, duration, and impact of lockdowns affecting the respondents.

The court concluded that while lockdowns occurred more frequently than ideal, they did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual treatment.

The court also found procedural unfairness in the award of damages without notice to the parties and rejected alternative arguments based on sections 7 and 10(c) of the Charter.

The applicant, Godday Dadzie, sought release via habeas corpus from immigration detention under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

He had been detained since 2014, primarily due to being a flight risk and issues with establishing his identity and country of origin, exacerbated by his lack of cooperation.

The court considered whether his detention was "very lengthy" and of "uncertain duration" factoring in the nature of the detention facility and the applicant's non-cooperation.

The court found that the applicant's detention was not exceptionally lengthy when accounting for his lack of cooperation, nor was its duration uncertain due to his own obstructionist tactics.

The application was dismissed, as the court concluded that the detention was for a valid immigration purpose, not arbitrary, and consistent with fundamental justice principles.

The applicants, an immigration detainee and a remand detainee housed in a maximum security provincial correctional facility, brought an application for habeas corpus and a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

They alleged that frequent and unpredictable lockdowns, primarily caused by staff shortages, violated their Charter rights.

During lockdowns, inmates were confined to their double-bunked cells for 24 hours a day with limited access to showers, phones, and programs.

The court found that the conditions during the lockdowns, which occurred approximately 50% of the time, constituted cruel and unusual treatment in violation of s. 12 of the Charter.

The court declined to order a systemic remedy or a transfer, but awarded Charter damages of $60,000 to the immigration detainee (payable jointly by Ontario and Canada) and $25,000 to the remand detainee (payable by Ontario).