Michel Pépin

The applicant, a permanent resident, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) upholding a removal order issued against her for failing to meet the residency obligation under s. 28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The applicant had attempted to rely on her husband's purported employment with a Canadian company in Turkey to meet the required days.

The IAD found that the husband's employment was simulated, noting that the company had pleaded guilty to immigration fraud related to his employment contract, and that there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations to justify retaining her status.

The Federal Court found no breach of procedural fairness and held that the IAD's determinations regarding the simulated employment and the humanitarian and compassionate considerations were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing her application for permanent residence under the Québec Investor class.

The officer refused the application on the basis that he was not satisfied the applicant genuinely intended to reside in Québec.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable and that the officer breached procedural fairness by not giving prior notice of specific concerns.

The Federal Court held the officer's decision was reasonable, noting the applicant's lack of knowledge about her proposed business and family ties to British Columbia.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the officer's concerns arose directly from the regulatory requirements and the applicant was given an opportunity to respond during the interview.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissing his appeal against the refusal to issue a permanent resident visa to his wife.

The IAD found the relationship was "not genuine in some respects" and entered into primarily for immigration purposes.

The Federal Court held that the IAD's reasoning regarding the genuineness of the marriage lacked transparency and intelligibility.

The Court also found that the IAD overlooked evidence of the applicant's numerous trips to visit his wife prior to the marriage.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for redetermination.

The applicants, citizens of Syria, sought judicial review of a migration officer's decision refusing their applications for refugee status under the country of asylum class.

The officer concluded that the applicants had a durable solution in Armenia, were untruthful during their interviews, and provided falsified documents regarding their religious affiliation and ethnicity.

The Federal Court dismissed the applications, finding the officer's credibility and factual determinations to be reasonable.

The applicant, a former Nigerian police officer, sought judicial review of an Immigration Division decision finding him inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for complicity in crimes against humanity.

The Federal Court found the decision reasonable, noting that the documentary evidence of widespread human rights abuses by the Nigeria Police Force was overwhelming and that the applicant's service in a specialized anti-riot unit supported a finding of knowing and significant contribution.

The applicant applied for permanent residence as a provincial nominee, submitting an employment letter attesting to work experience as a cook.

Following an anti-fraud unit site visit, a procedural fairness letter was sent, raising concerns about misrepresentation.

The officer ultimately denied the application based on misrepresentation.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing a breach of procedural fairness for failure to disclose extrinsic evidence.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the applicant was adequately informed of the concerns and given a meaningful opportunity to respond, which she utilized by providing submissions and statutory declarations.

The applicants, a mother and son, sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for an exemption from the requirement to obtain an immigration visa abroad on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The mother had been a victim of domestic violence and they had applied for temporary resident permits for victims of family violence.

The Federal Court found that the officer made material errors, including misunderstanding the temporary nature of the TRP applications and misapprehending psychological evidence of the mother's adjustment disorder.

The Court allowed the application for judicial review and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a Senior Immigration Officer finding her inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 37(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for engaging in transnational criminal activity, specifically money laundering.

The applicant argued the Officer relied on an erroneous FINTRAC report and ignored explanations and an expert psychological report.

The Federal Court found the Officer's decision reasonable, noting the applicant acted as a platform to receive and distribute proceeds from wire fraud over three years.

The Court concluded the Officer's reliance on the FINTRAC report and her overall findings were justified and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) decision that rejected his application.

The applicant argued that the eight-year delay in processing his application violated procedural fairness, that an interview should have been conducted, and that the officer ignored evidence.

The Court found that the delay did not amount to an abuse of process, that the officer's credibility findings did not trigger the need for a hearing, and that the officer reasonably assessed the evidence regarding the applicant's risk of returning to the Congo.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an IAD decision dismissing his appeal against a removal order for failing to meet his residency obligation.

The applicant had been in Canada for only 273 days of the five-year period, having returned to Tunisia for family and medical reasons.

The IAD found his humanitarian and compassionate grounds insufficient to warrant special relief.

The Federal Court held that the IAD's assessment of his initial establishment, delay in returning, and his child's best interests was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division confirming his inadmissibility for failing to meet the residency obligation under s. 28 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The applicant had spent no days in Canada during the relevant five-year period.

The Court found the IAD's assessment of humanitarian and compassionate factors, including the applicant's reasons for remaining abroad and his establishment in Canada, to be reasonable despite a minor factual error.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a former member of the Nigerian Police Force, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division finding him inadmissible to Canada under section 35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for reasonable grounds to believe he engaged in crimes against humanity.

The Immigration Division applied the Ezokola test and found that the applicant made a knowing and significant contribution to the crimes committed by the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS).

The Federal Court found the decision-maker reasonably assessed the relevant factors and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing his application for permanent residence under the Quebec Skilled Worker Class.

The officer concluded that the applicant lacked the intention to reside in Quebec, relying on correspondence from the applicant's counsel exploring other immigration options after the provincial government cancelled his application under new legislation.

The Federal Court held the decision was unreasonable, finding the officer misinterpreted the applicant's attempt to resolve a bureaucratic issue as an intention to live elsewhere.

The Court also found a breach of procedural fairness, as the officer requested information from the province but rendered his decision before receiving the response, which contradicted the officer's assumptions.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Division decision confirming his inadmissibility for misrepresentation and finding insufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations for special relief.

The applicant had gained permanent residence by misrepresenting his marital status and later sponsored his true wife and children under false identities using fraudulent documents.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the IAD's decision was reasonable.

The IAD properly weighed the applicant's establishment in Canada against the intentional and repeated nature of his misrepresentations, and correctly found that his expressions of remorse were insufficient.

The Court also rejected allegations of bias, finding the IAD had assessed the evidence impartially.

The applicants sought reconsideration of a judgment that dismissed their applications for judicial review of a decision denying their Canadian citizenship applications.

They claimed the court overlooked the legal doctrine of a 'lock-in date' and requested the certification of serious questions of general importance.

The Federal Court dismissed the motions for reconsideration, finding that an argument raised does not constitute a matter overlooked under Rule 397(1)(b), and that Rule 397 prohibits reopening a judgment to certify questions.

An RCMP officer challenged the constitutionality of legislation excluding RCMP members from the federal public sector labour relations regime, alleging infringements of freedom of association, freedom of expression, and equality rights under the Charter.

The majority held that s. 2(d) protects the formation of independent employee associations and lawful collective activity, but does not require Parliament to include RCMP members within a particular statutory labour relations scheme.

The majority further held that the exclusions did not infringe s. 2(b) or s. 15(1), emphasizing that the Charter generally imposes no positive obligation of legislative inclusion absent exceptional circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent concluding that the exclusion had an anti-associational purpose and failed s. 1 justification.