4 total
Judicial review dismissed due to significant credibility issues and late disclosure of allegations.
The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) rejection of their refugee claim.
The claim was based on political persecution and domestic violence in Haiti.
Both the RPD and RAD found significant inconsistencies in the principal applicant's testimony regarding the timing and nature of the alleged assault and the late disclosure of domestic violence.
The RAD also refused to admit new evidence regarding a divorce because it was incomplete and did not meet the requirements of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA.
The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting that the applicants failed to demonstrate any serious shortcomings in the decision and misapplied the standard of review.
Judicial review dismissed as RAD reasonably assessed procedural fairness and forward-looking risks for Haitian applicants.
The applicants, a mother and minor daughter from Haiti, sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming an RPD decision rejecting their claim for refugee protection.
They alleged procedural fairness breaches by the RPD during the minor's testimony and challenged the RAD's findings on forward-looking risk related to past political violence against family members, an alleged kidnapping attempt by the minor's father, and general risk as women in Haiti.
The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting that the RPD's procedural conduct did not breach fairness and the RAD reasonably concluded there was insufficient objective evidence of a forward-looking risk.
Judicial review of a Customs Act contravention decision dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister's Delegate confirming a contravention of the Customs Act and seizing undeclared prescription drugs found in his vehicle at a land border crossing.
The Federal Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application for judicial review because the applicant was essentially challenging the contravention decision under section 131 of the Customs Act.
Under section 135(1) of the Act, such a challenge must be brought by way of an action, not an application for judicial review.
The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
Language school ordered to pay $22,560 for racially discriminatory differential treatment and termination of pedagogical consultant.
The applicant, a pedagogical consultant, alleged discrimination on the basis of colour, ethnic origin, and race during his employment with the respondent language school.
The respondents failed to attend the hearing.
The Tribunal found that the applicant was treated more harshly than his non-racialized counterpart, denied a key training opportunity, and ultimately dismissed for failing to provide daily updates during a medical absence—a requirement not imposed on other employees.
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's race, colour, and ethnic origin were factors in his differential treatment and dismissal.
The corporate respondent was ordered to pay $15,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and $7,560 for lost wages.
