Michael D. Manson

The applicant, a citizen of Afghanistan with Convention refugee status in Canada, applied for judicial review of a Minister's Delegate's opinion that he constituted a danger to the public under s. 115(2)(a) of the IRPA.

The applicant had amassed nearly thirty criminal convictions.

The Minister's Delegate determined that the danger the applicant posed outweighed the risks he would face in Afghanistan and his humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

The Federal Court found the decision reasonable, noting the Delegate properly conducted the required risk and balancing analysis under the IRPA and the Charter, and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a PRRA officer's decision refusing his application for protection from Iraq.

The officer had dismissed the applicant's photographic evidence as insufficient without holding an oral hearing.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding that the officer made veiled credibility determinations about the applicant and the photographic evidence under the guise of an insufficiency analysis.

As credibility was central to the decision, the failure to hold an oral hearing breached procedural fairness.

The matter was remitted for redetermination by a different officer.

The applicants sought an order of mandamus compelling the Minister to mail their permanent resident (PR) cards to their Canadian residential address rather than requiring in-person pickup.

The IRCC had approved their PR card applications and invited them to pick up the cards at an IRCC office, as the offices had reopened.

The Court found the application moot since the Minister had processed the applications and there was no refusal to perform a duty.

The Court also held that there is no legal requirement to mail PR cards to residences, as the regulations clearly mandate in-person attendance.

The applicant, an international student from Zimbabwe, applied for judicial review of an officer's decision refusing his Post-Graduate Work Permit (PGWP).

The officer refused the application because the applicant had a gap in his studies and did not change his status to visitor or leave Canada.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding that the officer misapplied the PGWP guidelines regarding leaves of less than 150 days and failed to account for evidence that the university did not require formal leave authorization and that the gap was caused by a foreign currency shortage in Zimbabwe.

The applicant applied for a study permit, which was refused by a visa officer on the basis of limited employment prospects in Iran.

The visa officer failed to consider a letter guaranteeing employment for the applicant after graduation.

The respondent minister moved in writing to allow the judicial review application and have the matter redetermined by a different officer.

The court granted the motion, setting aside the refusal and sending the matter back for redetermination.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division dismissing her appeal of the refusal of her spouse's permanent residence application.

The application was refused on the basis that the marriage was not genuine.

The Federal Court found the IAD's decision reasonable, noting that it was based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence, including inconsistencies and lack of communication records, and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division dismissing her appeal of an exclusion order for misrepresentation.

The applicant argued that she was denied procedural fairness due to inadequate interpretation at her hearing and that the panel's decision was unreasonable.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of material interpretation errors and concluding that the panel reasonably assessed the best interests of the child.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division dismissing his appeal of the refusal of a spousal sponsorship application.

The IAD found the marriage was not genuine under s. 4(1)(b) of the IRPR, despite the couple having a child together.

The Federal Court held the IAD breached the reasonableness standard by failing to properly weigh the presence of a child of the marriage and relying on unreasonable credibility findings based on minor inconsistencies.

The application was allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

The applicants applied for judicial review of a decision refusing their permanent residence application as privately sponsored refugees.

The application was refused because the applicants failed to respond to a request for their UNHCR ProGres Case Number to verify their refugee status.

The applicants alleged they did not receive the request letter, constituting a breach of procedural fairness.

The Federal Court found that the respondent established the letter was sent to the provided email addresses, shifting the risk of non-delivery to the applicants.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision rejecting his application for permanent resident status under the Spouse or Common-law Partner in Canada class.

The applicant was found inadmissible on security grounds due to his membership in MEK, an organization previously listed as a terrorist organization.

The court held that the immigration officer's decision was reasonable, as the legislation does not require a temporal connection between membership and the acts of terrorism, and humanitarian and compassionate grounds cannot override a section 34 inadmissibility finding.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, an RCMP member on medical leave, sought judicial review of a Level II grievance decision that quashed his medical discharge but declined to address several collateral issues, finding them moot.

The applicant argued the record was incomplete, the Commissioner was biased, and the remaining issues should have been decided.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of an incomplete record or bias, and holding that the Commissioner reasonably applied the Borowski test to conclude the remaining issues were moot and did not warrant an exercise of discretion to decide.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of two decisions denying eligibility of a golf course located on a Canadian Forces Base for payments in lieu of taxes under the Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act.

The respondent determined the golf course was not "federal property" because it was occupied by the applicant under a concession agreement.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the respondent breached procedural fairness by failing to provide fair and effective notice of the case to meet, given the applicant's legitimate expectations based on past payments.

The Court also found the decisions unreasonable as they failed to adequately explain the departure from past practice and did not consider the factual matrix of whether the golf course was truly "occupied" by the applicant.

The matter was remitted for redetermination.

This decision deals with the quantum of costs awarded to the defendant following a patent infringement action where the defendant was successful in defending against infringement.

The defendant sought lump sum costs and relied on an offer to settle.

The court found the offer to settle non-compliant with Rule 420 as it was not made 14 days before trial.

The court also found the defendant's conduct during the litigation unnecessarily expanded the proceeding.

Costs were awarded at the middle range of Column III, and the defendant's primary expert fees were capped at two-thirds of the billed amount.

The plaintiff brought an action alleging the defendant infringed claims 1 to 8 of a patent relating to a modularized well pad system for heavy oil production.

The defendant counterclaimed that the patent was invalid for obviousness.

The Federal Court construed the claims and found that the defendant's well pads did not infringe because they lacked the essential element of having a plurality of flow lines on a first, lower level.

The court dismissed the defendant's obviousness attack, finding that the placement of the steam injection flow line on the lower level would not have been obvious to a skilled person.

The plaintiffs sought to dismiss or adjourn the defendant's motion for summary trial in a patent infringement action.

The Court held that the defendant was entitled to bring the motion as of right and that the appropriateness of summary trial should be determined at the hearing itself, not pre-emptively.

The Court refused to adjourn the summary trial until after oral discovery, noting it is not a precondition.

The Court did grant an extension of the summary trial hearing from three to five days on consent.