3 total
Judicial review of RAD decision dismissed where negative credibility findings rendered internal flight alternative moot.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing her appeal.
The RAD had found her not credible regarding central elements of her claim for refugee protection.
The applicant argued the RAD breached procedural fairness by failing to address an internal flight alternative after requesting submissions on it, and that its credibility findings were unreasonable.
The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the internal flight alternative was irrelevant given the negative credibility findings, and holding that the RAD's credibility assessment was reasonable.
Judicial review dismissed; RPD's finding of a viable internal flight alternative in Colombia was reasonable.
The applicants, a mother and minor daughter from Colombia, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision denying their refugee claims on the basis of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA).
They alleged a well-founded fear of persecution by the Urabeños, a neo-paramilitary group.
The Federal Court, applying the Vavilov standard of reasonableness, upheld the RPD's findings that the applicants did not face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA and that it was not unreasonable for them to relocate there.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
The court dismissed charges of willfully failing to report a material change to the WSIB, finding surveillance evidence insufficient to prove improved functioning or gainful employment.
The defendant was charged with willfully failing to inform the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board of a material change in circumstances in connection with his entitlement to benefits within 10 days after the change occurred, contrary to section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.
The charge covered the period between October 11, 2010, and September 1, 2011.
The prosecution alleged that the defendant was gainfully employed and had demonstrated improved physical and psychological functioning, which constituted material changes he failed to report.
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed it.
