Nick Continelli

The applicant brought a constitutional challenge arguing that ss. 119(1)(c) and 120(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act violate ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The applicant argued that because pre-sentence custody is not recognized in calculating parole eligibility, offenders denied bail are arbitrarily delayed in their day parole compared to those released on bail.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the right to apply for parole engages a liberty interest, the deprivation is not grossly disproportionate or overbroad given the distinct purposes of pre-trial custody and the conditional release regime.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' action for $60 million in damages as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action lacked a plausible cause of action, alleged events from decades ago, included claims against former counsel and the Law Society, made serious unsubstantiated allegations against non-parties, relied on odd and irrelevant claims, and involved unusual procedural steps.

The plaintiffs failed to provide submissions despite being invited to do so.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting in default.

The plaintiff failed to attend the case conference.

The court set aside the noting in default, finding that the plaintiffs had noted the defendants in default without notice despite being asked not to.

The court also reviewed the statement of claim and found it appeared frivolous and vexatious, directing the registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiffs regarding a potential dismissal of the action under Rule 2.1.01 and staying the action pending the outcome of that hearing.

The applicant, who had been living in Canada without status since 2003, sought a judicial deferral of her removal order to Guyana after her request for an administrative deferral was denied.

Applying the tripartite test for a stay, the Federal Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a strong case, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured her.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

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

The RAD found the RPD properly assessed the applicant's credibility and that the applicant generally lacked credibility regarding his claim of persecution based on sexual orientation.

The Federal Court found the RAD's application of the SOGIE Guidelines, credibility findings, and treatment of documentary evidence were reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicants, an Ethiopian family residing in Canada on a diplomatic posting, sought judicial review of a decision denying their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the Officer's assessment of the applicants' establishment, hardship upon return to Austria or Ethiopia, and the best interests of the child to be reasonable and justified in light of the facts and law.

The applicants, a family from Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal and confirming the Refugee Protection Division's finding that they had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Benin City.

They claimed fear of persecution from extended family demanding the 13-year-old daughter undergo female genital mutilation.

The applicants argued the RAD failed to assess the minor daughter's particular circumstances under the second prong of the IFA test.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding it was the applicants' onus to provide evidence that the IFA was unreasonable, which they failed to do, and the RAD was not required to consider arguments not raised before it.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a senior immigration officer refusing her application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The applicant had resided in Canada for over 21 years after overstaying a temporary visa.

She argued that the officer failed to properly balance her establishment in Canada against her disregard for immigration laws, and failed to adequately consider the best interests of her grandchildren.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision lacked transparent and intelligible reasoning regarding the balancing of factors.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the Refugee Protection Division's rejection of his refugee claim.

The claim was based on fear of persecution in China as a member of the Three Grades of Servants Christian sect.

The RAD found the applicant lacked credibility due to his inability to explain the beliefs or practices of his church and inconsistencies in his testimony.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, noting that it was open to the RAD to afford no weight to corroborative evidence when the central story was found not credible.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal and confirming the Refugee Protection Division's finding that they had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Mexico City.

The applicants claimed refugee protection based on a fear of persecution from the minor applicant's father.

The Court found no reviewable error in the RAD's IFA analysis, specifically its conclusion that the agent of persecution lacked the means and motivation to locate the applicants in the IFA, and its finding that relocating to Mexico City would not be unreasonable or unduly harsh.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a visa officer's decision refusing his application for a temporary work permit as a cleaning supervisor in Canada.

The officer concluded under paragraph 200(3)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations that the evidence did not demonstrate the applicant could adequately perform the work.

The Federal Court held the decision was reasonable given the limited evidence provided, which consisted primarily of financial documents from the applicant's business in India.

The Court also found no breach of procedural fairness, noting the applicant had no right to be informed of the officer's concerns regarding the sufficiency of his evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the Refugee Protection Division's determination that he was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

The applicant claimed to be a Falun Gong practitioner fearing persecution in China.

The RAD rejected the claim based on adverse credibility findings, noting the applicant's inability to articulate fundamental concepts of Falun Gong and inconsistencies in his testimony.

The RAD also rejected his sur place claim, finding that evidence of his activities in Canada did not establish a forward-looking risk of persecution in China.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision, including its credibility assessments and dismissal of the sur place claim, to be reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing his application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

He argued the officer failed to properly assess his hardship upon returning to Pakistan, his establishment in Canada, and the best interests of his grandchildren.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision reasonable, noting the officer considered the applicant's submissions and evidence, including country conditions and family ties, but concluded the grounds were insufficient to warrant an exemption.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.