Martine St-Louis

The Minister of National Revenue applied for judicial authorization to serve a requirement for information on Hydro-Québec regarding a group of unnamed commercial customers.

A similar application regarding essentially the same group had been dismissed in 2018.

Applying the doctrine of res judicata under article 2848 of the Civil Code of Québec, the Court found there was identity of parties, object, and cause between the two applications.

The Minister's application was dismissed on the ground of res judicata, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicants, citizens of India, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal from the Refugee Protection Division.

The RAD found that the applicants had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Delhi, concluding they failed to demonstrate the Punjab police had the motivation and ability to locate them there.

The Federal Court reviewed the RAD's decision on a reasonableness standard.

Finding that the RAD properly considered the evidence and made reasonable inferences, the Court dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a RAD decision dismissing his appeal from the RPD.

The RPD rejected his claim based on credibility concerns, specifically regarding omissions from his BOC and a divorce certificate indicating he was in Sudan in 2011.

The RAD refused to admit a new witness statement explaining the divorce certificate because the applicant failed to justify why it was not provided when the appeal was perfected.

The Federal Court found the RAD's application of the evidentiary rules and its credibility findings to be reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, citizens of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the rejection of their refugee claims.

The claims were rejected based on significant credibility issues, including inconsistencies regarding where the principal applicant lived, where her child was born, and her family composition.

The RAD reasonably concluded that psychological evidence did not explain the central inconsistencies.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

In this proposed class proceeding involving multiple actions against the Attorney General of Canada, the Federal Court issued an order appointing an amicus curiae.

The amicus was appointed to assist the Court in safeguarding the interests of the class members during the consolidation and bifurcation of the proceedings.

The Court noted the mandate included addressing potential conflicts of interest for plaintiffs' counsel arising from the bifurcation.

The applicant, a minor child under a Kafala order, applied for judicial review of a visa officer's refusal to issue a temporary resident visa.

The visa officer was not satisfied the applicant would leave Canada at the end of the authorized stay.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the visa officer's decision was reasonable and justified in light of the legal and factual constraints.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissing his appeal of a visa officer's refusal of his wife's permanent residence application under the family class.

The IAD found the applicant had not established that the marriage was genuine and not entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring an immigration status.

The Federal Court held that the IAD's assessment of the evidence, including cultural context and the spouses' lack of mutual knowledge, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review to quash three requests for information sent by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to the Swiss Federal Tax Administration.

The CRA suspected the applicants had unreported foreign assets and issued the requests under the Canada-Switzerland Income Tax Convention.

The applicants argued the CRA acted on illegally obtained confidential information, violated solicitor-client privilege, and failed to exhaust domestic avenues.

The Federal Court applied the reasonableness standard and found the CRA had the authority to issue the requests and complied with statutory requirements.

The Court dismissed the applications with costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissing her appeal of a visa officer's refusal to grant a permanent resident visa to her spouse in the Dominican Republic.

The visa officer and the IAD concluded that the marriage was not genuine or was entered into primarily for the purpose of acquiring a status under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Federal Court found that the IAD's decision was based on an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis, supported by evidence of inconsistencies and a lack of depth in the couple's relationship.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) finding the respondents not inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The respondents had claimed refugee status and minimized their political involvement with the BNP during the inadmissibility proceedings, having previously described themselves as supporters in their refugee claims.

The Federal Court found the IAD's analysis unreasonable, particularly its conclusion that being a supporter of a major political party could not equate to membership without making thousands inadmissible, and its acceptance of varying testimony depending on the proceeding's objective.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada's Appeal Panel, which upheld the suspension of his pilot's medical certificate due to unstable diabetes.

The Federal Court found the Appeal Panel's decision reasonable, noting the applicant failed to provide requested medical information to the Minister.

The Court also rejected the applicant's claims of bias and procedural unfairness, finding the hearing was conducted properly.

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision dismissing his unjust dismissal complaint under s. 240 of the Canada Labour Code.

The adjudicator had found that the applicant's position was eliminated due to a legitimate restructuring and that the process used to select the applicant for termination was not done in bad faith, meaning the complaint could not be considered pursuant to s. 242(3.1) of the Code.

The Federal Court held that the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal denying her leave to appeal a decision refusing to antedate her employment insurance claim.

The applicant delayed filing her claim because she was waiting for her Record of Employment and was unaware of the timeline to file.

The Federal Court found the Appeal Division's decision reasonable, noting that ignorance of the law and waiting for a Record of Employment do not constitute "good cause" for delay under the Employment Insurance Act.