Luc Martineau

The applicant, a citizen of Mexico and former police officer, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the rejection of his refugee protection claim.

The applicant argued the RAD breached procedural fairness by considering prospective risk, which he claimed was a new issue not addressed by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD had jurisdiction to consider prospective risk and that the applicant's lack of credibility rendered the finding of no prospective risk reasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the rejection of his refugee claim.

The applicant alleged persecution in Colombia due to his work as a volunteer topographer assisting with land restitution.

The Refugee Protection Division found him not credible.

The RAD upheld the decision and refused to admit new evidence submitted by the applicant, finding it irrelevant.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the RAD reasonably assessed the new evidence and that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant, a citizen of Haiti, sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the RPD's denial of her refugee protection claim based on imputed political opinion and membership in a particular social group (women from Haiti).

The RAD found her fear was not objectively well-founded and lacked prospective risk.

The RAD also refused to admit new evidence that was reasonably available prior to the RPD hearing.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting it rigorously examined her personal circumstances and correctly applied the criteria for new evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Employment Insurance Commission, which dismissed its appeal of a non-entitlement decision.

The officer had ruled that the applicant was not entitled to a reduction of the employer's premium rate for 2015 because its disability plan, contained in collective agreements, had a coordination of benefits clause that failed to meet the requirements of the Employment Insurance Regulations.

The applicant argued its practice of not applying the coordination clause and a unilateral letter of commitment should suffice.

The Federal Court found the Commission's decision reasonable, as the unilateral letter was not a formal written commitment under the Regulations, and the collective agreement language remained non-compliant.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.