Naseem Mithoowani

The applicant sought an extension of his temporary resident visa to care for an ailing relative.

A visa officer refused the extension, noting only that the applicant had had sufficient time to fulfill his purpose.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the officer's reasons failed to meet the requirements of justification and responsiveness, as they did not explain why the time was sufficient or address other relevant factors like ties to the home country and compliance history.

The applicant applied for a study permit but failed to disclose a prior United States visa refusal.

An immigration officer determined she had misrepresented a material fact and found her inadmissible for five years pursuant to section 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The applicant argued the omission was an innocent mistake caused by lack of space on the application form and noted she had disclosed the refusal in a separate application.

The Federal Court held the officer's decision was reasonable, concluding that the misrepresentation was material and that the narrow innocent mistake exception did not apply because the applicant was subjectively aware of the refusal and knowingly omitted it.

The applicants, citizens of Portugal who have lived in Canada for about eight years, sought judicial review of a Senior Immigration Officer's decision refusing their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Federal Court granted the application, finding the Officer's assessment of the children's best interests to be unreasonable.

The Officer failed to give the children's best interests substantial weight, failed to apply the principle in a manner responsive to each child's particular circumstances, and improperly equated the adaptability of the older children to that of the younger ones.