James Todd

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) refusing to reinstate their refugee claims.

The applicants had withdrawn their claims following severe mental anguish caused by a miscarriage, but applied for reinstatement weeks later supported by a psychotherapist's report indicating their decision-making was impaired.

The Federal Court found the RPD's decision unreasonable because it failed to meaningfully address the psychological evidence and holistic circumstances under the "interests of justice" analysis.

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

The applicant, an African American transgender woman from the US, sought judicial review of a decision refusing her H&C application.

She cited discrimination, abuse, and mental health impacts of returning to the US.

The Federal Court found the officer's treatment of the mental health evidence was unreasonable, as the officer understated the clinical expert's opinion and focused on the availability of treatment rather than the effect of removal on the applicant's mental health.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision denying his study permit application.

The officer found the applicant's proposed course of study lacked a natural progression and that he had insufficient financial resources.

The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer failed to consider the applicant's detailed explanations for his study plan and his own financial evidence.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant, a citizen of Iran, applied for judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision.

The applicant claimed she would face persecution due to her political activism in Canada.

The PRRA officer concluded she did not have a high enough profile to attract the attention of Iranian authorities.

The Federal Court found the officer did not err in failing to hold an oral hearing, as the decision was based on insufficiency of evidence rather than a serious credibility issue.

The Court held the PRRA decision was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a citizen of Eritrea, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming his exclusion from refugee protection under Article 1E of the Refugee Convention.

The applicant had previously been granted refugee protection and permanent residence in Italy.

The Federal Court found that the RAD reasonably determined the applicant failed to prove he had lost his status in Italy or could not return there, noting his lack of diligent efforts to reinstate his status.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of Colombia, sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting his claim for refugee protection.

The RPD found that the applicant had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Colombia and failed to establish a forward-looking risk of persecution from the paramilitary group Los Urabeños.

The Federal Court held that the RPD reasonably concluded the applicant did not present sufficient credible evidence of ongoing risk or that the proposed IFA was unreasonable, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant applied for a study permit but failed to disclose a prior United States visa refusal.

An immigration officer determined she had misrepresented a material fact and found her inadmissible for five years pursuant to section 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The applicant argued the omission was an innocent mistake caused by lack of space on the application form and noted she had disclosed the refusal in a separate application.

The Federal Court held the officer's decision was reasonable, concluding that the misrepresentation was material and that the narrow innocent mistake exception did not apply because the applicant was subjectively aware of the refusal and knowingly omitted it.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the federal government's mandatory hotel quarantine requirement for international air travellers arriving in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.

They argued the requirement violated their Charter rights and that the government failed to follow the advice of its expert advisory panel.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the government's policy choices were not arbitrary or irrational, and that the applicants failed to establish any breach of their Charter rights.

The applicants, a family from Nigeria, sought judicial review of a RAD decision upholding a finding that they are not Convention refugees.

The determinative issue was the availability of an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Abuja.

The applicants argued that agents of persecution could find them there and that the RAD unreasonably relied on a revoked jurisprudential guide.

The Federal Court found the RAD's analysis of the evidence and its use of the analytical framework from the guide to be reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant applied for permanent residence in Canada but was refused by an Immigration Officer who found him inadmissible for serious criminality under s. 36(1)(c) of the IRPA based on a false statement he made in a US passport application.

The Federal Court granted the judicial review, finding the Officer's analysis unreasonable because the Officer failed to properly engage with the essential elements of the Canadian offence of perjury and wrongly concluded that the facts would have constituted perjury under the Criminal Code if committed in Canada.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness sought an order for the non-disclosure of certain information in the Certified Tribunal Record on the basis of national security.

The applicant opposed the motion and requested the appointment of a Special Advocate.

The Federal Court held that the appointment of a Special Advocate was unnecessary because the redactions did not impact fairness or natural justice.

The Court granted the Minister's motion for non-disclosure, concluding that the disclosure would harm national security.

The applicant applied for judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing his work permit application and finding him inadmissible to Canada for five years for misrepresentation under s. 40(1)(a) of the IRPA.

The applicant had disclosed his US criminal history and 2011 removal but failed to mention two subsequent US visa waiver refusals.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding the visa officer's decision unreasonable because it failed to provide an intelligible analysis of how the omission of the waiver refusals was material when the underlying facts had already been disclosed by the applicant.

The applicant, a Convention refugee from Bangladesh, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) ceasing his refugee status.

The RPD determined that the applicant voluntarily reavailed himself of the protection of Bangladesh by obtaining a national passport and travelling there twice.

The Federal Court found the RPD's decision reasonable, concluding the RPD correctly applied the test for reavailment and reasonably found no exceptional circumstances rebutted the presumption of intent to reavail.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought an interim injunction to restrain the enforcement of the federal government's mandatory hotel quarantine rules for air travellers arriving in Canada, pending a full hearing on the constitutionality of the rules.

The applicants argued the rules violated their Charter rights, including mobility and liberty rights, and caused financial hardship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a narrow serious issue to be tried under s. 7 of the Charter, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the government's public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and its variants.

The applicants, citizens of Portugal who have lived in Canada for about eight years, sought judicial review of a Senior Immigration Officer's decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Federal Court granted the application, finding the Officer's assessment of the children's best interests to be unreasonable.

The Officer failed to give the children's best interests substantial weight, failed to apply the principle in a manner responsive to each child's particular circumstances, and improperly equated the adaptability of the older children to that of the younger ones.

Foreign nationals released from immigration detention on terms amounting to virtual house arrest sought habeas corpus relief when their application to modify the conditions was rejected.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding that habeas corpus was unavailable because the applicants were not held in custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that habeas corpus applies to any deprivation of liberty, not merely incarceration in a custodial facility.

The court remitted the matter to the Superior Court of Justice to determine whether the remaining requirements for habeas corpus were satisfied.

The appellants, Chinese and Dominican citizens detained by the Canada Border Services Agency in immigration proceedings, appealed a Superior Court order dismissing their application for a writ of habeas corpus.

The lower court found no deprivation of liberty and dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal addressed a jurisdictional issue regarding whether the appeal should proceed to the Divisional Court under section 8(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act or to the Court of Appeal under section 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that because the lower court's dismissal was based on a finding of no deprivation of liberty, the statutory criteria in section 8(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act were not met, and therefore the appeal properly lay to the Court of Appeal.

The applicants, foreign nationals under house arrest due to immigration proceedings, sought a writ of habeas corpus or modification of their release terms.

The Attorney General of Canada opposed and brought a preliminary motion for a stay based on lack of jurisdiction, arguing that house arrest does not constitute "detention" for habeas corpus purposes.

The court dismissed the application, finding that house arrest, while restrictive, does not amount to detention or a deprivation of liberty in the context of habeas corpus, distinguishing it from jail or imprisonment.

The court noted that the applicants had alternative remedies through the Immigration Division and Federal Court for modifying release terms.

The moving party brought an urgent motion to stay a deportation order pending the release of the Court of Appeal's decision in an appeal concerning habeas corpus applications for lengthy immigration detention.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding no serious question to be tried because the deportation order is an independent immigration determination that would not be affected by the outcome of the habeas corpus appeal.

The court noted that deportation would actually bring an end to the detention the moving party sought to review.