Jocelyne Gagné

In an application for a writ of quo warranto challenging the continuation in office of band council members whose terms had expired, the applicants sought production of extensive banking records under Rule 317.

The Court dismissed the motion, finding it to be a fishing expedition for documents not relevant to the narrow scope of quo warranto relief.

The applicant, an inmate serving a life sentence, sought judicial review of a decision denying his request to terminate his affiliation with the Hells Angels, a recognized security threat group.

The applicant argued that he was no longer a full-patch member and that the decision maker relied on incomplete information and was biased.

The Federal Court found the decision reasonable, noting evidence of ongoing contacts and involvement in illicit activities that contradicted his disaffiliation claim.

The Court found no appearance of bias.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a former border services officer, requested access to surveillance videos of his workplace during a shift where an altercation occurred.

The Canada Border Services Agency disclosed videos showing the applicant but redacted the faces of members of the public and other border officers, claiming the latter's images were personal information exempt from disclosure under subsection 19(1) of the Access to Information Act.

On judicial review, the Federal Court applied a correctness standard and found the Agency erred.

Applying the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in Dagg and Canada v. Canada, the Court concluded that images of federal employees in uniform and on duty fall within the exception in paragraph 3(j) of the Privacy Act (information relating to an employee's position or functions) and are thus not "personal information" protected from disclosure.

The Court ordered the unredacted videos disclosed.

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) rejecting her refugee claim.

She alleged a fear of persecution by her family for refusing female genital mutilation (FGM) and by Boko Haram.

The RAD concluded there was insufficient evidence of a reasonable chance of persecution on a forward-looking basis.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision intelligible and reasonable, noting it meaningfully applied the Gender Guidelines and properly assessed the risk of persecution without needing an explicit Internal Flight Alternative analysis.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction staying the operation of regulations prohibiting certain firearms pending the outcome of their applications for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the motions, finding the applicants failed to demonstrate with clear and non-speculative evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.

The Federal Court approved a $1,900,000 settlement agreement in a reverse class proceeding involving former directors of bankrupt Aveos Fleet Performance Inc. and its former employees.

The dispute concerned payment orders for unpaid wages and compensation.

The Court found the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it provided approximately 69% to 100% recovery for the employees' admitted claims without legal fees deducted.

The applicant, an inmate serving a life sentence, sought judicial review of CSC decisions raising his security classification to medium and transferring him to a medium security institution.

He challenged the refusal of a 10-day extension to make written representations before transfer, the raising of his public safety risk, and the raising of his escape risk.

The Federal Court found the refusal of the extension and the moderate public safety risk rating reasonable, but set aside the escape risk rating determination for improperly relying on assumptions unsupported by the inmate's history, referring that portion back for redetermination.

The applicant, who was granted refugee status in 2006, applied for judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision ceasing her refugee protection.

The RPD found that the applicant had voluntarily availed herself of the protection of Haiti by obtaining and renewing a Haitian passport and traveling to Haiti at least 11 times.

The Federal Court found the RPD's decision reasonable, noting that the applicant's explanations for the trips did not demonstrate they were involuntary, and that the RPD was not required to assess the risk of return since no evidence of risk was presented.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) refusal to grant her refugee status.

Both tribunals concluded her account lacked credibility due to omissions in her testimony regarding a ransom demand, inconsistencies in her description of captivity conditions, and behavior inconsistent with a genuine fear (returning home after escaping).

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, an Israeli-born activist involved in the BDS movement, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upholding the denial of his refugee protection claim.

He argued that the RAD erred in its assessment of new evidence, failed to hold a hearing, and incorrectly found that state protection was available in Israel.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's decision reasonable in all respects, including its determination that the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in a democratic country.

The applicant, a Haitian citizen and permanent resident of Brazil, applied for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing her appeal.

The RAD had found her excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E of the Convention and section 98 of the IRPA, and then analyzed her alleged fear of persecution in Brazil.

The applicant argued the RAD erred by conducting a risk analysis after an exclusion finding.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, noting the applicant had raised the risk in Brazil before the RAD, and any error in analyzing it would not affect the unchallenged conclusion that she was excluded from protection.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision denying him refugee protection on the basis that he had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in New Delhi, Mumbai, or Kolkata, India.

The applicant argued the RAD erred in concluding he would not face a risk of persecution in these cities, given the use of tenant registration systems and the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS).

The Federal Court found that the RAD reasonably assessed the documentary evidence and properly concluded that the applicant failed to establish a risk of harm in the proposed cities, as there was no evidence he would appear in the CCTNS or that local police would share information.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a negative Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) which refused an application to hire four full-time foreign food counter attendants.

The LMIA officer determined the applicant failed to make reasonable efforts to hire Canadians because the entry-level wage advertised was below the median wage and they failed to use the JobMatch program.

The Federal Court held the decision was unreasonable as the officer failed to consider the applicant's evidence regarding the actual prevailing wage for entry-level positions and ignored explanations regarding the JobMatch service, thereby fettering their discretion.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant applied for judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision dismissing her sponsorship appeal for lack of jurisdiction under subsection 64(3) of the IRPA, as her niece did not fall within the exception.

The Federal Court admitted new evidence of an adoption judgment obtained after the IAD decision and allowed the judicial review, remitting the matter to the IAD to reconsider its jurisdiction.

The applicant, a former international student, applied to change her status to a visitor after her student permit expired, aiming to eventually apply for a Post-Graduation Work Permit.

The officer refused the application, citing a lack of proof of funds, no actual PGWPP application, sufficient time to fulfill her purpose, and lack of ties to her home country.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing a breach of procedural fairness and an error in interpreting section 182 of the Regulations.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that procedural fairness did not require the officer to raise concerns arising directly from the Regulations and that the officer's interpretation and assessment of the missing requirements were reasonable.