Jessica Ko

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal concerning the 2005 taxation year.

The Minister confirmed the reassessment on June 22, 2022.

The applicant's agent faxed the extension application after business hours on September 20, 2023, and the registry stamped it on September 21, 2023.

The Tax Court of Canada held that under the Rules, a faxed document is deemed filed on the date stamped by the registry.

The Court also held that the confirmation was deemed sent on the date it bears.

Consequently, the application was filed one day late and was dismissed.

The applicants challenged the refusal of their application for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The determinative issue was the officer's failure to address the applicants' argument that the inability of their Canadian-born minor child to sponsor them breached his equality rights.

The Federal Court found this omission rendered the decision unreasonable, as the decision-maker failed to grapple with a central issue raised in the submissions.

The application for judicial review was allowed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing her application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

She argued the officer breached procedural fairness and made unreasonable findings regarding the best interests of her child and her establishment in Canada.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding the officer's assessment of the evidence was reasonable.

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

The officer concluded that the applicant's establishment in Canada and family ties did not justify an exemption from the usual requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision reasonable, noting that the officer considered and weighed the evidence and reasonably concluded that the hardship the applicant would face upon returning to India could be mitigated.