John Norris

The applicant sought judicial review of three decisions determining her ineligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit, the Canada Recovery Benefit, and the Canada Recovery Caregiving Benefit because she did not meet the minimum income requirement.

The Federal Court found the decisions were reasonable and procedurally fair, as the applicant's reported net self-employment losses meant she fell short of the $5,000 threshold.

The applicants, citizens of Guyana, sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.

The principal applicant had previously relinquished her permanent resident status.

They argued the decision was unreasonable, particularly the officer's assessment of the best interests of the children.

The Federal Court found the officer's conclusion that the children's ties to Guyana were stronger than to Canada was contrary to the evidence and lacked analysis.

The Court also held the officer erred by relying on the possibility of seeking temporary status in Canada as a reason to reject an application for permanent status.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for permanent residence as a Convention refugee abroad.

The application was refused because the applicant submitted a fraudulently obtained Angolan refugee card and police certificate for his spouse.

The officer found the applicant failed to answer all questions truthfully and failed to establish his spouse was not criminally inadmissible.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the officer's concerns were raised during the interview and the applicant had an opportunity to respond.

The Court also found the officer's decision was reasonable, as the reliance on non-genuine documents supported a finding that the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act were not met.

The applicant, a Convention refugee in Thailand, was sponsored for permanent residence in Canada.

A Migration Officer refused the application because the sponsoring group allegedly failed to establish sufficient financial resources under paragraph 154(1)(a) of the IRPR.

The officer concluded the applicant's brother could not afford his committed contribution based on his 2020 income, but the officer failed to consider a bank statement showing the required funds were already set aside in a savings account.

The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable because the officer's reasons contained a fundamental gap by entirely ignoring the bank balance without explanation.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejecting her refugee protection claim and concluding it had no credible basis.

She argued procedural unfairness due to the RPD's handling of concerns with her documentary evidence and submitted the decision was unreasonable.

The Federal Court found no procedural unfairness, noting the applicant could not address the RPD's queries since her husband procured the documents, and she provided no evidence of prejudice.

The Court also held the RPD's credibility findings were transparent and intelligible, dismissing the application.

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

The officer found that the applicant's establishment in Canada and alleged hardship in Pakistan did not overcome the negative factors of her past misrepresentation (a marriage of convenience) and lack of remorse.

The Federal Court held that the officer's assessment of the evidence was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing her appeal.

The applicant claimed refugee protection based on a fear of her partner's family because she refused female genital mutilation.

The RAD found the applicant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies, her return to Nigeria after travel, and her delay in fleeing.

The Federal Court held that the RAD's credibility findings and assessment of evidence were reasonable, dismissing the application for judicial review.

The applicants, a family from Libya, applied for judicial review of a decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds.

The applicants argued that the Officer unreasonably assessed the adverse country conditions in Libya, particularly the existence of an Administrative Deferral of Removals (ADR) for Libya.

The Federal Court found the Officer's decision unreasonable, as the Officer failed to adequately explain why the generalized risk acknowledged by the ADR would not affect the applicants personally.

The Court also found that the Officer unreasonably speculated about future alternative immigration pathways.

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

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal.

The RAD had raised new credibility concerns during the appeal and requested submissions.

The applicants argued this breached procedural fairness because they believed they could not submit new evidence to address the concerns.

The Federal Court held that the RAD's request for submissions did not preclude an application to admit new evidence under Rule 29 of the RAD Rules.

The Court found no breach of procedural fairness and dismissed the application.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division denying their refugee claims based on a failure to establish identity.

They alleged ineffective assistance from their former counsel.

The Federal Court found that the former counsel's failure to advise the principal applicant regarding identity documents and to submit available identity documents fell below the standard of reasonable professional assistance.

This resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

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

The applicants, citizens of Mexico, brought a motion for a stay of their removal order scheduled for January 23, 2023, pending the final determination of their application for leave and judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision.

The core of their underlying application alleged ineffective assistance by their former counsel.

The Federal Court granted the motion, finding that the applicants raised a serious question to be tried regarding the ineffective assistance claim, that they would suffer irreparable harm by losing the right to a meaningful and effective remedy if removed, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The applicant, a citizen of Colombia subject to a deportation order for serious criminality, brought a motion to stay her removal pending an application for leave and judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision.

The Court granted the stay, finding she met the tripartite test.

The underlying application raised serious questions about the PRRA officer's credibility and evidentiary findings regarding her fear of a paramilitary group.

The applicant would suffer irreparable harm if removed, as her application would become moot and she would lose the right to an effective remedy.

The balance of convenience favoured the applicant despite the public interest in executing removal orders.

The applicant, a failed refugee claimant, sought a stay of his removal from Canada.

Due to a calculation error by his former counsel, his application for leave and judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division's decision was filed late, rendering him ineligible for an automatic statutory stay of removal.

The Inland Enforcement Officer subsequently denied his request for a deferral of removal.

The applicant then brought this motion for a stay pending judicial review of that deferral decision.

The Court noted that the deferral application was likely meritless but identified a risk of injustice due to counsel's failure to seek a court-ordered stay in the underlying judicial review file.

The Court exercised its discretion to grant an interim stay of removal, adjourned the current motion sine die, and established a timetable for the applicant to properly seek a stay in the underlying file.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision rejecting his pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application.

The PRRA officer refused to consider supporting documents because the English translations were not certified by the translator.

The Federal Court held that the officer's treatment of the documents was unreasonable, as a reasonable decision maker would have alerted the applicant to the omission and allowed an opportunity to rectify it before making a decision.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

The applicant applied for judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision dismissing her appeal regarding her inability to meet the Minimum Necessary Income requirement to sponsor her family members.

The IAD found insufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to warrant special relief.

The applicant argued the IAD breached procedural fairness by relying on a previous adverse credibility finding without notice and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Federal Court held there was no breach of procedural fairness, as the applicant should have known credibility was at issue, and found the IAD's assessment of the financial risks and humanitarian factors was reasonable.

The applicants, originally accepted as Convention refugees from Turkey, had their refugee status ceased after they reavailed themselves of Turkey's protection to obtain fertility treatments.

While a humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application was pending, the applicants were removed to Turkey with their Canadian-born son.

An Officer later refused the H&C application, concluding the son's best interests did not favor relief as he could attend an English school and would be supported by his parents.

The Federal Court allowed the judicial review, finding the Officer's decision unreasonable for failing to meaningfully engage with evidence that registering the son for school could expose the family to persecution risks and that the family was living in instability.

The applicant, a citizen of China, applied for an open work permit.

The application was refused on the basis that he misrepresented material facts by failing to disclose an arrest and charge in the United States.

The applicant applied for judicial review, arguing the decision was unreasonable.

The Federal Court agreed, finding that the visa officer conflated an April 2014 charge with a separate 2013 charge, leading to unreasonable factual determinations.

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

The applicants, common law gay couple from Brazil, sought an interlocutory stay of their removal order pending the final determination of their application for leave and judicial review of a decision refusing their H&C application.

The Court found the applicants met the three-part test for a stay and granted the motion, extending the time to commence the application.

Following a judgment allowing the application for judicial review and setting aside the decision to revoke the applicant's Canadian citizenship, the Court sought submissions on whether a serious question of general importance should be certified.

The parties agreed that no such question arose, and the Court was satisfied that no question of general importance warranted certification.

The applicant, who has significant mental health challenges, sought an urgent stay of her scheduled removal to Nigeria pending her application for judicial review of a decision refusing a 60-day deferral of removal.

The applicant had failed to appear for her removal previously, raising the clean hands doctrine.

The Court held that the clean hands doctrine should be considered within the balance of convenience portion of the stay test.

The Court found a serious question existed regarding whether the officer's reliance on unspecified reception arrangements being made in Nigeria was reasonable or fair.

Irreparable harm was established due to the risk of psychological damage and the loss of a meaningful remedy if the applicant were removed.

The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, mitigating her prior non-compliance due to her mental health.

The motion for a stay of removal was granted.