Nathan Joyal

The plaintiffs moved to amend the Certification Order to permit a claim for punitive damages in a class action concerning PFAS contamination allegedly caused by the National Research Council of Canada.

The court reviewed new evidence suggesting the NRC knew or ought to have known about the contamination earlier than previously established.

The court held that the plaintiffs must first bring a motion to amend their pleadings before the Certification Order could be amended, adjourning the motion to add punitive damages as a common issue until that time.

The plaintiff corporation sought leave under Rule 15.01(2) for its officers and directors to represent it in the action, and also sought to amend the statement of claim to properly name the Attorney General of Canada as the defendant.

The court denied leave for the corporation to be represented by non-lawyers, finding the supporting materials inadequate and the proposed representatives not capable of comprehending the legal issues.

The court ordered the statement of claim to be amended to correctly name the Attorney General of Canada as the defendant.

The applicant, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing her appeal and confirming that she was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

The RAD had found her allegations regarding arrests, torture, and threats following a political demonstration to be lacking in credibility due to inconsistencies, implausibilities, and a failure to claim protection at the first opportunity.

The Federal Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and concluded that the RAD's findings on credibility and its assessment of the documentary evidence were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing her study permit application for a culinary management diploma in Canada.

The officer found the study plan vague and poorly documented, and was not satisfied the applicant would leave Canada at the end of her stay.

The Federal Court held the officer's decision was unreasonable, as the applicant had provided a detailed plan and supporting documentation that the officer failed to intelligibly address.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upholding the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) finding that he was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

The RAD concluded there was insufficient reliable evidence to establish a risk of persecution or harm in Libya due to an imputed political opinion or family threats.

The applicant argued the RAD erred by failing to conduct an independent assessment of his credibility.

The Federal Court held the RAD was not required to assess credibility when the evidence itself was found insufficient to support the claim, finding the RAD's decision transparent, intelligible, and reasonable.

The applicant, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo residing in a refugee camp in Zambia, applied for immigration under the Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program.

An immigration officer initially found she met the criteria but later refused the application after discovering the applicant's daughter had traveled to the United States on a Congolese passport.

The applicant sought judicial review, arguing breaches of procedural fairness and unreasonableness.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding the officer breached procedural fairness by relying on credibility concerns that were never communicated to the applicant, denying her an opportunity to respond.

The Court also found the decision unreasonable due to inconsistent and insufficient reasoning.

The self-represented plaintiff appealed a Prothonotary's order striking her Statement of Claim without leave to amend.

The underlying claim sought $70 million in damages based on wide-ranging allegations of fraud and illegal tracking by various institutions and the government.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Prothonotary's conclusion that the pleading consisted of bare assertions and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.