Nadine Silverman

The applicant, a failed refugee claimant, sought a stay of his removal from Canada.

Due to a calculation error by his former counsel, his application for leave and judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division's decision was filed late, rendering him ineligible for an automatic statutory stay of removal.

The Inland Enforcement Officer subsequently denied his request for a deferral of removal.

The applicant then brought this motion for a stay pending judicial review of that deferral decision.

The Court noted that the deferral application was likely meritless but identified a risk of injustice due to counsel's failure to seek a court-ordered stay in the underlying judicial review file.

The Court exercised its discretion to grant an interim stay of removal, adjourned the current motion sine die, and established a timetable for the applicant to properly seek a stay in the underlying file.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the refusal of her refugee claim based on her sexual orientation.

The RAD and the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found the applicant not credible primarily because they concluded an arrest warrant and medico-legal certificate she provided were fraudulent, citing translation errors and formatting issues.

The Federal Court found this conclusion unreasonable, noting that translation and formatting errors are common in official documents from less developed countries like Cameroon, and that the handwritten acronyms and statutory references on the warrant actually corroborated its authenticity.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for reconsideration.

The applicants, a family of Roma ethnicity from the Czech Republic, applied for judicial review of a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) decision rejecting their application.

The PRRA officer found they would not face persecution or risk if returned to the Czech Republic, relying on findings of adequate state protection despite acknowledging societal discrimination against Roma.

The applicants argued the officer applied the wrong legal test, ignored evidence, and failed to consider their profiles.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision reasonable under the Vavilov standard.

The Court concluded the officer properly considered the operational adequacy of state protection and did not fundamentally misapprehend the evidence regarding country conditions.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, citizens of Kosovo, sought judicial review of a decision denying them temporary resident permits (TRPs).

They had applied for TRPs alleging they were victims of human trafficking, and in the alternative, requested TRPs to regularize their status pending a humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application.

The Federal Court found the officer's conclusion that the circumstances amounted to labour exploitation rather than human trafficking was reasonable.

However, the Court held the officer erred by failing to address the alternative request for TRPs on non-trafficking grounds, including the psychological impact of deportation on one of the children.

The application for judicial review was allowed in part, and the alternative TRP request was remitted for redetermination.

The Applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing their appeal and confirming that they are not Convention refugees.

The Principal Applicant claimed protection based on domestic violence in Argentina and argued state protection was unavailable.

The RAD found she failed to rebut the presumption of state protection.

The Court concluded the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting the failure to seek state protection is a relevant factor, and dismissed the application.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal on credibility grounds, finding insufficient evidence that the principal applicant was a genuine convert to Christianity.

The Federal Court held that the RAD unreasonably rejected new evidence regarding a man the principal applicant had converted (Group B evidence) and unreasonably dismissed other corroborating evidence based on misapprehensions of the RPD testimony.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted to a different RAD member for reconsideration.

The applicants, who claimed refugee protection due to risks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, applied for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) after their initial claim was rejected based on a finding that they were Gabonese nationals.

They submitted new evidence, including a statutory declaration from the principal applicant's mother attesting to her Congolese identity.

The PRRA Officer admitted the new evidence but assigned it no weight and decided not to hold an oral hearing without providing reasons.

The Federal Court held that the PRRA Officer committed a reviewable error by unreasonably concluding the statutory declaration provided no new information, and by failing to provide transparent and intelligible reasons for refusing an oral hearing.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division's (RAD) decision dismissing his application to re-open his appeal, which had previously been dismissed for lack of perfection.

The applicant argued the dismissal breached natural justice because his former counsel failed to perfect the record.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unreasonable because it failed to properly consider the evidence regarding the justification for the delay in bringing the application to re-open, as required by Rule 49(7) of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules.

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

The applicant, a permanent resident, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissing her application to re-open her appeal of a departure order.

The departure order was issued for failure to comply with residency obligations.

The applicant's appeal was declared abandoned after she failed to attend a scheduling conference, having failed to update her contact information with the IAD as required.

The IAD found no breach of natural justice, noting she had been warned of the consequences of failing to update her address.

The Federal Court applied the Vavilov framework, found the IAD's decision to be reasonable, and dismissed the application.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an extension of time to serve their statement of claim after the service deadline had expired.

The delay resulted from inadvertence and administrative errors by the plaintiffs’ counsel, and the motion itself was also brought after additional delay.

Applying the principles from Chiarelli v. Weins, the court focused on whether the defendant would suffer prejudice caused by the delay.

The defendant provided only general assertions of potential prejudice and no specific evidence demonstrating prejudice arising from the late service.

The court held that the absence of demonstrated prejudice favoured permitting the action to proceed on its merits and granted the extension, with no order as to costs.