Kareena Wilding

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing her temporary resident visa application for misrepresentation after she failed to disclose a prior US visa revocation.

She argued the omission was an innocent mistake because she filled out the forms in haste and misunderstood the question.

The Federal Court held the officer reasonably rejected this explanation, finding the statutory question clearly included other countries and that mere inadvertence does not meet the narrow exception for innocent misrepresentation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a Cuban national and wrestling coach, sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for permanent residence as a self-employed person.

The Officer found the applicant lacked the intention and ability to be self-employed in Canada, citing his current paid employment and lack of contracts.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding the Officer's decision unreasonable.

The Court noted the Officer failed to properly assess the applicant's international experience under the Regulations and unreasonably relied on the lack of contracts given the nature of the proposed services.

The applicants, elderly citizens of Pakistan, applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds from within Canada.

The application was refused due to insufficient evidence of hardship, and lack of evidence regarding the best interests of their grandchildren.

The Federal Court upheld the refusal as reasonable, finding that the officer correctly noted the lack of evidence supporting the applicants' claims and reasonably concluded that the applicants had not met their burden.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration applied for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision granting refugee protection to the respondent, a citizen of Somalia.

The Minister challenged the RAD's findings regarding the reliability of the respondent's birth certificate and identity evidence, and alleged the RAD erred by failing to consider Article 1E.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's decision reasonable in its assessment of the documentary evidence and noting that Article 1E was not in issue before the Refugee Protection Division.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for permanent resident status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicant suffers from a severe mental illness requiring daily supervision.

The Court found the officer's decision unreasonable as it failed to properly consider the applicant's family ties in Canada, his past inability to successfully manage his illness, his need for in-person support which could not be achieved remotely, the lack of appropriate outpatient services or residences in the West Bank, and the Canadian citizenship of his siblings.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration by a different officer.

The applicants, a widow and her two minor daughters from India, sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicants argued they would face hardship returning to India due to threats from the deceased husband's creditors and a lack of family support.

The Federal Court granted the application, finding that the officer unreasonably assumed the applicants would have familial support in India, directly contradicting the evidence in the record.

The matter was remitted for redetermination by a different officer.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) that denied refugee status to the male applicant and his two minor children, while granting it to his wife and eldest son.

The male applicant argued the RAD failed to adequately consider the risk of sterilization he would face under China's family planning policy if he returned with his two minor children.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unreasonable because it failed to account for the male applicant's specific circumstances—returning to China without his wife but with two children—and the evidence that the family had been targeted by family planning authorities.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a Migration Officer's decision refusing his application for permanent residence under the Convention refugee abroad class.

The Federal Court granted the application, finding the decision unreasonable because the decision letter omitted the rationale for the refusal.

Under the Vavilov framework, formal reasons must justify the decision to the affected party.

It was insufficient for the Respondent to rely solely on internal GCMS notes to explain the decision when those notes were not provided to the applicant alongside the refusal letter.

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing his application for a temporary resident visa to visit his estranged wife and children in Canada.

The officer was not satisfied the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay due to his strong family ties in Canada.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision was reasonable, noting the high volume of applications processed and that brief reasons can provide sufficient justification in this context.

The applicant applied for permanent residence in the self-employed persons class, intending to establish an art gallery in Canada.

A visa officer refused the application, finding that the business plan lacked sufficient detail and market research to establish the applicant's intent and ability to be self-employed in Canada.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the officer breached procedural fairness by not giving an opportunity to respond to concerns and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

The Court found no breach of procedural fairness, as the officer's concerns related to the sufficiency of the evidence rather than credibility, and no duty arises to alert an applicant to such deficiencies.

The Court also held the officer's conclusion was reasonable, as the submitted business plan relied on high-level, open-source information without a clear basis for its financial projections or specific research into the intended market.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against the respondents for damages related to his HIV infection, which he alleged was linked to a sponsorship undertaking given to the federal government.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court declined to entertain new arguments regarding exceptions to the limitation period raised for the first time on appeal.

Furthermore, the Court found no evidence establishing a causal link between the government's actions and the appellant's infection.

The plaintiff alleged that his former spouse knowingly infected him with HIV and sued multiple defendants, including the federal Crown, an immigration medical examiner, and the employer of the spouse.

The defendants brought motions for summary judgment dismissing the claims.

The court held that the action was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge of material facts when he was diagnosed as HIV‑positive in March 2004 but commenced the action in 2008.

The court further held that neither the federal government nor the immigration physician owed a private law duty of care to the plaintiff under the Anns/Cooper framework, and there was no evidentiary basis for negligence or vicarious liability against the nightclub employer.

The claims against all moving defendants were dismissed.