Mathieu Laliberté

The applicants, citizens of India who were previously deported from Canada, applied for a temporary resident visa to visit their children in Canada.

A visa officer refused the application, finding insufficient evidence that they would leave Canada at the end of their authorized stay.

The applicants sought judicial review, arguing a breach of procedural fairness because the officer allegedly made a veiled credibility finding without giving them a chance to respond.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the officer's decision was based on an insufficiency of evidence regarding their relationship with their children, not credibility, and was reasonable.

Following a judgment awarding the plaintiff $6,804 in damages for administrative segregation, the parties were unable to agree on costs and submitted written submissions.

The defendant sought double costs under Rule 420(2) of the Federal Courts Rules on the basis that the plaintiff obtained a judgment less favourable than an unaccepted $55,000 settlement offer made 14 days before trial.

The Court found no reason to depart from Rule 420, noting the plaintiff unnecessarily prolonged the trial by calling irrelevant evidence and maintaining an exaggerated claim despite previous orders and admissions.

The Court adjusted the claimed amounts and ordered the plaintiff to pay $15,000 in costs to the defendant.

The applicants, citizens of Angola, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting their claim for refugee protection.

The RAD confirmed the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the principal applicant's testimony regarding her disclosure of a fraudulent contract and subsequent persecution lacked credibility due to significant inconsistencies and omissions.

The Federal Court found the RAD's analysis to be justified, transparent, and intelligible, concluding that the credibility findings were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision confirming the rejection of their refugee claim.

The claim was denied based on negative credibility inferences drawn by the RPD and affirmed by the RAD, relating to an evolving narrative about a police interaction, vagueness regarding an anti-drug campaign, and a failure to mention a shooting at their residence during the hearing.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the applicants failed to demonstrate the RAD's decision was unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision upholding the rejection of her refugee claim based on credibility findings.

The RAD reasonably concluded that a psychological report diagnosing PTSD did not overcome significant credibility issues, including unexplained behavior and a failure to provide corroborating documents.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.