Mélissa Mathieu

The applicants, a Pakistani family, sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicants argued the officer improperly assessed their psychological evidence, similar to the errors found in Kanthasamy.

The Federal Court agreed, finding the officer's reasoning—requiring evidence of the unavailability of treatment in Pakistan and ongoing treatment in Canada, while dismissing the impact of removal on their mental health—was unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicants, citizens of Senegal, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting their refugee claims based on fears of domestic abuse and female genital mutilation.

The Federal Court first struck portions of the principal applicant's affidavit containing impermissible opinion and argument.

The Court upheld the RPD's determinative finding that the applicants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in Senegal, concluding the decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of Greece, sought judicial review of a decision denying her humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application.

The applicant had submitted psychiatric and mental health evidence regarding the hardship she would face if returned to Greece due to previous spousal abuse.

The Federal Court found the decision unreasonable because the Officer failed to consider the psychological evidence, granting the application and remitting the matter for redetermination.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissing their appeal from the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).

The RAD had upheld the RPD's finding that the principal applicant, a pro-Kurdish activist from Turkey, was not credible and had afforded her corroborative evidence little to no weight.

On judicial review, the Federal Court found that the RAD unreasonably extended its credibility concerns regarding the applicant to the corroborative evidence, effectively requiring the corroborative evidence to overcome the applicant's credibility issues rather than assessing it independently.

The application for judicial review was allowed, and the matter returned for redetermination.

The applicant, a citizen of India, applied for a work permit as a welder.

Following an interview, the visa officer refused the application based on concerns that the applicant lacked the spoken English required for the job and would not leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing the decision was unreasonable and that the officer breached procedural fairness by discouraging the use of an interpreter.

The Federal Court held the officer's assessment of language proficiency was reasonable and supported by the interview record.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the purpose of the interview was to assess English skills required for the employment.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision dismissing his claim for refugee protection based on his practice of Falun Gong.

The RPD found the applicant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and a lack of corroborative evidence regarding his departure from China and the summons allegedly issued against him.

The RPD also rejected his sur place claim, finding the evidence insufficient to establish him as a bona fide practitioner.

Applying the reasonableness standard of review, the Federal Court held that the RPD's decision was justified, intelligible, and transparent, as the applicant failed to present credible and granular evidence to support his claims.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant, a Jamaican citizen and former permanent resident of Canada, was detained for five years by the Canada Border Services Agency pending removal to Jamaica following a removal order based on serious criminality.

The appellant brought a habeas corpus application and sought Charter damages under sections 7, 9, and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his detention was arbitrary, indefinite, and constituted cruel and unusual treatment.

The application judge dismissed the Charter damages claim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no breach of the Charter rights and clarifying that Charter damages claims cannot be joined to habeas corpus applications.

The applicant brought a habeas corpus application seeking release from a five-year immigration detention pending deportation, along with a claim for Charter damages under s. 24(1) for alleged violations of his ss. 7, 9, 10, and 12 rights.

During the hearing, the applicant was deported to Jamaica, rendering the habeas corpus application moot.

The court proceeded to hear the Charter damages claim, finding it had jurisdiction to do so without requiring bifurcated proceedings.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the Charter claims, concluding that the lengthy detention was lawful, subject to regular review, and not grossly disproportionate or cruel and unusual, as the delay was primarily caused by Jamaican authorities' failure to issue a travel document.

The applicant, a permanent resident detained as a flight risk and danger to the public under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, appealed the dismissal of his habeas corpus application.

Pending the appeal, he brought a motion for a stay of any potential future deportation order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it premature as no deportation order had yet been made, and holding that the appeal did not raise a serious issue to be tried because the IRPA provides a complete and comprehensive scheme for reviewing detention.

Four applicants sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, arguing that their continued immigration detention was unlawful.

The court held that it should decline habeas corpus jurisdiction because the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and its regulations create a complete, comprehensive and expert scheme for detention review, with further judicial review available in the Federal Court.

Applying the Peiroo exception recognized in the habeas corpus jurisprudence, the court found the statutory process to be at least as broad and advantageous as superior court habeas corpus review in this context.

All applications were dismissed, and a post-hearing request to seal one applicant's record was also denied.