Émilie Tremblay

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division dismissing her appeal of a removal order issued after she was found inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality.

The applicant argued the IAD failed to conduct a separate analysis of the factors relevant to a stay of the removal order, specifically the best interests of her children.

The Federal Court held the IAD's decision was reasonable, noting the IAD had properly assessed the H&C factors, including the best interests of the children, and its conclusion that the applicant's low potential for rehabilitation and lack of remorse outweighed those interests.

The applicant applied for judicial review of a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) decision determining he was not at risk of persecution in Bangladesh.

The officer had discounted the probative value of charge sheets showing the applicant was wanted by police, solely due to a minor inconsistency regarding the applicant's age.

The Federal Court granted the application, finding it unreasonable for the officer to discount the evidence based on a clerical error that had no bearing on the underlying fact being proved.

The applicant, a diamond merchant, brought rough diamonds into Canada without declaring them or having a valid Kimberley Process Certificate (KPC).

The diamonds were seized by CBSA.

The applicant was later acquitted of criminal charges, and a judge ordered the diamonds returned to him.

The Minister agreed to release the diamonds but required they be exported immediately without a Canadian KPC because they were never lawfully imported.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing this requirement was unreasonable and contrary to the acquittal order, and that a CBSA officer was biased.

He also requested a confidentiality order.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the terms of release reasonable and in accordance with the strict requirements of the Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act.

The Court held that an acquittal does not exempt a person from civil administrative requirements.

The bias allegations and confidentiality motion were also dismissed for lack of evidence.