Jean-François Bertrand

The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan and convention refugee, obtained a Pakistani passport and used it to travel to Pakistan five times between 2008 and 2014.

The Minister successfully applied to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) to cease his refugee protection on the basis that he had reavailed himself of the protection of his home country.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding the RPD's decision unreasonable.

The RPD failed to meaningfully engage with the applicant's evidence regarding his subjective intent to reavail, specifically his reasons for acquiring the passport and travelling to Pakistan, and his perceived level of risk during short visits, contrary to the Federal Court of Appeal's guidance in Galindo Camayo.

The applicants, a family from Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their refugee claims based on the availability of an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Lagos.

The applicants' current counsel alleged that their former RAD counsel were incompetent for failing to raise the incompetence of their initial Refugee Protection Division (RPD) counsel.

The Federal Court found no incompetence by the RAD counsel, noting that the allegations were unfounded and unsupported by the record.

Furthermore, even if there had been incompetence, there was no prejudice because the IFA finding was determinative.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and costs of $1.00 were ordered payable by the applicants' current counsel to the former RAD counsel for the unfounded allegations.

Two Innu First Nations filed suit in the Quebec Superior Court against mining companies operating a megaproject straddling Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, seeking a permanent injunction, $900 million in damages, and declarations recognizing Aboriginal title and other Aboriginal rights over a traditional territory called Nitassinan.

The Attorney General of Newfoundland and Labrador moved to strike allegations relating to land situated in that province, arguing Quebec courts lacked jurisdiction.

The majority held that the claim was a non-classical mixed action involving sui generis Aboriginal rights (not real rights in the civil law sense) and personal obligations, and that Quebec courts had jurisdiction over both aspects under arts. 3134 and 3148 C.C.Q. because the defendant mining companies were domiciled in Montreal.

The dissent would have allowed the appeal, finding that Aboriginal title and other Aboriginal rights are real rights for private international law purposes, that art. 3152 C.C.Q. deprived Quebec courts of jurisdiction over claims relating to land outside Quebec, and that allowing such jurisdiction would seriously undermine Canadian federalism and ultimately impede access to justice for Indigenous claimants.