Mahan Keramati

The appellant brought an action against the federal government and the Minister of Health following the death of his son shortly after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

The claim alleged negligence and misfeasance in public office regarding the approval and promotion of the vaccine.

The motion judge struck the claim without leave to amend, finding it plain and obvious that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the government owed no private law duty of care to individual members of the public when making broad public health policy decisions, and that the claim lacked material facts to support the bad faith required for misfeasance.

The court struck Daniel Hartman's claim against the Attorney General of Canada and the Minister of Health, which alleged negligence and misfeasance in public office following the death of his son after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

The court found that the government’s public health actions and communications were directed to the public at large and did not create a private law duty of care to individuals.

The claim was dismissed as it was plain and obvious that it could not succeed, even with proposed amendments.

Mohamed Mahjoub, subject to a security certificate and deportation order, sought habeas corpus in the Superior Court to challenge the indefinite conditions of his release, arguing Charter breaches.

The Minister moved to stay the application, citing lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, the existence of an adequate appeal route and the comprehensive nature of the IRPA security certificate scheme (Peiroo exception).

The motion judge granted the stay.

Mahjoub appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the IRPA's security certificate review process, with its specialized Federal Court judges and special advocate system, constitutes a comprehensive and advantageous scheme for reviewing detention conditions, thus precluding habeas corpus, even though the motion judge erred regarding the adequacy of the appeal route.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision denying their refugee claims from Colombia.

The RPD found they failed to rebut the presumption of state protection.

The Federal Court granted the application, concluding the RPD's decision was unreasonable because it failed to articulate the correct legal test for state protection at the operational level and did not meaningfully grapple with country condition evidence showing the inadequacy of state protection for victims of organized crime.

The applicants, citizens of Nigeria, sought a stay of their removal from Canada pending the determination of an application for leave and judicial review of the refusal of their permanent residence application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Court found that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the officer's assessment of establishment and hardship.

The Court further held that the applicants would suffer irreparable harm due to their severe mental health issues and suicidal ideation, which would be exacerbated upon return.

The balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The motion for a stay of removal was granted.

The applicant made an inland refugee claim that was accepted by the Refugee Protection Division.

The applicant had failed to disclose a criminal charge.

The Minister successfully applied to reopen the claim to consider suspending it pending the criminal charge outcome.

The applicant sought judicial review of the reopening decision.

The Minister moved to dismiss the application.

The Federal Court granted the motion, finding the decision to reopen was interlocutory and not subject to judicial review.

The applicant, a citizen of China who was granted refugee status in Canada, sought judicial review of a departure order issued by a Minister's delegate after her refugee protection was found to have ceased due to reavailment.

The applicant argued that she had not lost her permanent resident status because the acts leading to reavailment occurred before the coming into force of paragraph 46(1)(c.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Federal Court found the delegate's decision reasonable, noting that the events leading to the cessation of her refugee status occurred after the coming into force of the provision, and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicants argued the officer erred in assessing their establishment in Canada and the best interests of the minor applicant.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision was reasonable, noting the officer had engaged with the evidence and applied an empathetic approach.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the federal government's mandatory hotel quarantine requirement for international air travellers arriving in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic.

They argued the requirement violated their Charter rights and that the government failed to follow the advice of its expert advisory panel.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the government's policy choices were not arbitrary or irrational, and that the applicants failed to establish any breach of their Charter rights.

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to suspend the operation of an Order-in-Council requiring air travellers entering Canada to undergo mandatory quarantine at a government-authorized accommodation or designated quarantine facility while awaiting COVID-19 test results.

The applicants challenged the measures under sections 7 and 9 of the Charter, arguing they constituted arbitrary detention and were not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice since travellers arriving by land or who tested positive were permitted to quarantine at home.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicants raised a serious issue regarding arbitrariness, they failed to establish irreparable harm and the balance of convenience heavily favored maintaining the public health measures, which were based on the precautionary principle and aimed to prevent the spread of new, highly transmissible COVID-19 variants.

The applicants sought an interim injunction to restrain the enforcement of the federal government's mandatory hotel quarantine rules for air travellers arriving in Canada, pending a full hearing on the constitutionality of the rules.

The applicants argued the rules violated their Charter rights, including mobility and liberty rights, and caused financial hardship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a narrow serious issue to be tried under s. 7 of the Charter, the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the government's public health measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and its variants.