Marcia Pritzker Schmitt

Five bellwether individual issues trials were heard as summary judgment motions to determine whether class members who were placed in administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries were entitled to additional compensatory damages beyond their share of the aggregate damages award.

The court assessed the idiosyncratic harm suffered by each plaintiff, taking into account their pre-existing mental health conditions and other stressors.

The court awarded additional compensatory damages to three plaintiffs ($50,000, $25,000, and $75,000) who proved that their time in segregation caused specific, additional harm.

The claims of the other two plaintiffs were dismissed as they failed to prove causation.

The court declined to award punitive damages in any of the cases.

The applicants, citizens of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming they are not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

They feared persecution from unknown individuals after the principal applicant reported fraud involving government officials.

The RAD concluded they had viable internal flight alternatives in Port Harcourt and Ibadan.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting the applicants failed to establish that the agents of persecution had the means or motivation to track them nationally.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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

The RAD upheld the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the applicant was not credible, largely due to memory gaps.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unreasonable because it accepted the applicant's diagnosis of severe PTSD but failed to consider whether the trauma-related memory issues accounted for the inconsistencies in his testimony.

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

The Attorney General of Canada appealed two decisions granting habeas corpus relief to an individual detained on account of an outstanding deportation order.

The applicant had been detained for approximately 25 months on immigration grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision to release the applicant on habeas corpus, finding that the detention was lengthy and of uncertain duration and could no longer be justified as furthering the machinery of immigration control.

However, the Court found that the application judge erred by assuming jurisdiction to supervise any subsequent re-incarceration by immigration authorities.

The Court struck the problematic supervisory clause and provided guidance on appropriate conditions for release in immigration detention cases.