5 total
Stay of removal granted where former counsel's failure to submit PRRA evidence raised a serious issue.
The applicant sought to stay his removal from Canada pending the final determination of his application for leave and judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision.
The PRRA had been refused because the applicant's former counsel failed to submit any evidence or arguments by the deadline.
The Court granted the stay, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding incompetence of counsel, irreparable harm from potential return to Turkey without a substantive risk assessment, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant.
Motion for stay of removal granted due to failure to consider best interests of child.
The applicant, who had been living in Canada without status, sought to stay his removal scheduled for January 5, 2025, pending the determination of a spousal sponsorship application filed by his wife in November 2023.
The Court found that the applicant met the tripartite test for a stay of removal.
A serious issue was raised because the deferral officer failed to consider the best interests of the applicant's teenage daughter.
Irreparable harm was established due to the financial and emotional impact on the family, particularly the daughter.
The balance of convenience favoured the applicant.
The motion for a stay of removal was granted.
Stay of removal granted pending spousal sponsorship application determination, owing to failure to consider child's best interests.
The applicant, a Jamaican citizen facing a removal order, sought an interlocutory stay of his removal from Canada to Jamaica pending the resolution of his spousal sponsorship application.
The Court found the applicant met the tripartite test for a stay.
Specifically, there was a high likelihood of success on the underlying judicial review because the deferral decisions failed to meaningfully grapple with evidence concerning the applicant's indispensable support to his wife and newborn child.
The Court concluded the balance of convenience lay in the applicant's favour despite a history of immigration non-compliance.
Motion to hold judicial review in abeyance pending a separate Charter challenge granted.
The applicant brought a motion to hold her judicial review in abeyance pending the determination of a Charter challenge in the separate matter of Gnanapragasam.
The applicant had her permanent residence status revoked after the RPD granted the Minister's application to cease her refugee protection.
The respondent argued the motion should be dismissed because the test for a stay under paragraph 50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Act was not met.
The Court found it was in the interest of justice to grant the applicant's request, following the reasoning in a similar case (Habib), and ordered the matter to be specially managed.
Judicial review granted where RPD engaged in microscopic and circular credibility analysis of refugee claim.
The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting their refugee claim and making a 'no credible basis' (NCB) finding, which precluded an appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division.
The Federal Court found the RPD's decision unreasonable because the member engaged in a microscopic and circular analysis of the evidence, divorcing individual credibility findings from the overall context of the refugee claim.
The RPD unreasonably used an omission in a study permit application and discrepancies in corroborating documents to entirely discredit the applicants.
Because the NCB finding was inextricably tied to this flawed reasoning, the Court allowed the application and remitted the matter for redetermination by a different member.
