Lev B Abramovich

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision dismissing his claim for refugee protection based on his practice of Falun Gong.

The RPD found the applicant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and a lack of corroborative evidence regarding his departure from China and the summons allegedly issued against him.

The RPD also rejected his sur place claim, finding the evidence insufficient to establish him as a bona fide practitioner.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Federal Court held that the RPD's decision was justified, intelligible, and transparent, as the applicant failed to present credible and granular evidence to support his claims.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, Gloucester Gate Inc., sought declarations of default and an order for vacant possession against a co-owner, Joseph Parlato, for unpaid plumbing repair costs and escalating legal fees.

Parlato initially failed to reimburse for repairs but subsequently paid the initial demand, including legal costs, under protest.

The court found that while Parlato was initially in breach, this default was cured by his payment.

The court determined that subsequent demands for "authorization" to release funds from counsel's trust account and additional legal/plumbing costs were unnecessary and prolonged the dispute.

The Corporation's application for further relief was dismissed, and Parlato was granted a refund for the additional amounts paid.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits and related damages, including an allegation of conspiracy.

The plaintiff had previously received benefits but her coverage was terminated when she reduced her work hours to part-time.

The court found no evidence to support the conspiracy claim against the employer or the insurers.

Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff's claim for disability benefits was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as she discovered or ought to have discovered her claim when she was allegedly unable to work full-time in March 2007, but did not commence the action until May 2011.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

A commercial landlord applied for a declaration that a lease with its tenant gym operator was terminated and sought an order for possession due to alleged nuisance caused by excessive noise.

The evidentiary record consisted largely of hearsay and minimal firsthand evidence, and the landlord had not complied with procedural requirements for expert evidence regarding acoustics.

The tenant’s responding materials were also procedurally deficient and attempted to seek relief, including an interlocutory injunction, without proper originating process or motion materials.

The court found the pleadings and evidentiary record insufficient to permit an intelligible adjudication of the parties’ rights and obligations.

The application was adjourned to allow the parties to clarify issues, consider proper procedures, and potentially pursue settlement.