John Norris

Following earlier motions where the defendants were awarded costs, the parties could not agree on the amount.

The Court directed a timeline for written submissions.

The defendants filed their submissions seeking $7,521.60 based on Column III of Tariff B. The plaintiff failed to file any responding submissions despite multiple communications.

The Court found the defendants' request fair and reasonable, ordering the plaintiff to pay the costs within 14 days.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the rejection of their refugee protection claims.

The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) had made negative credibility findings due to material omissions in the principal applicant's original Basis of Claim compared to his testimony.

On appeal, the applicants argued the differences were immaterial and blamed stress and bad advice.

The RAD dismissed the appeal.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting that omissions in a claim form can properly impugn credibility and the RAD was not required to address documents not raised in the applicants' appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of an officer's decision refusing his applications for humanitarian and compassionate relief and a temporary resident permit.

The applicant, who has a history of serious criminality but has demonstrated significant rehabilitation, argued the officer misapprehended his criminal record and failed to properly assess his request for a temporary resident permit.

The Federal Court found the H&C decision reasonable, as the officer balanced the positive factors against the significant criminal history.

However, the Court found the TRP decision unreasonable because the officer failed to properly assess the risk under section 24(1) of the IRPA, improperly adopting the H&C analysis and incorrectly concluding the applicant would not leave Canada simply because he wished to stay permanently.

The application for judicial review was allowed in part.

Following the allowance of an application for judicial review, the Court issued a supplementary judgment on whether a question of general importance should be certified under s. 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Neither the applicant nor the respondent proposed any questions.

The Court concluded that no questions of general importance warranted certification and none were stated.