Immigration Law - ODC

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision confirming the cancellation of his nomination approval under the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program.

The nomination was cancelled because the applicant failed to apply for a work permit within the six-month validity period of his work permit support letter, citing COVID-19 travel restrictions in China and family responsibilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the internal reviewer's decision reasonable and concluding there was no breach of procedural fairness, no veiled credibility finding, and that adequate reasons were provided.

The applicant, a licensed paralegal, brought an application for judicial review seeking a declaration that he is authorized to process and file immigration applications under the federal Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

The Law Society of Ontario (LSO) maintained that By-Law 4 restricts paralegals to providing legal services only in connection with proceedings before the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB).

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the LSO's interpretation of By-Law 4 was correct, that the by-law does not conflict with the IRPA under the federal paramountcy doctrine, and that the restriction does not violate section 7 of the Charter.

The applicants, foreign nationals who received job offer-based nominations under the Ontario Immigrant Nominee Program, sought judicial review of decisions cancelling their nominations.

The nominations were cancelled because the applicants failed to obtain work permits and commence employment within the required timeframe, which they attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, finding that the internal reviewer's decision to confirm the cancellations was reasonable and that there was no breach of procedural fairness, as the requirement to apply for a work permit was implicit in the nomination conditions.

The applicant sought judicial review of the rejection of his application for the Ontario Immigration Nominee Program under the Investor Component Stream.

The applicant proposed a $3 million investment in a private secondary school.

The application was rejected on the basis that it failed to demonstrate significant economic benefit to Ontario, failed to meet job creation commitments, and failed to establish the necessity of the proposed nominee positions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the respondent's decision was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The court also held that the discretionary, policy-oriented nature of the program attracted a low standard of procedural fairness, which was met through the issuance of a procedural fairness letter.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Tribunal's Appeal Division, which upheld a Hearing Division finding of professional misconduct and a $200,000 costs award.

The misconduct related to the appellant's inadequate preparation of Personal Information Forms for Hungarian Roma refugee claimants and his failure to adequately supervise his staff.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded the Hearing Panel's findings of fact, credibility assessments, and costs award were supported by the evidence and fell within a range of reasonable outcomes.

The applicants sponsored family members immigrating to Canada and signed undertakings to provide for their financial needs.

The sponsored family members received social assistance, resulting in debts owed by the applicants to the Province of Ontario.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Ministry's decisions to enforce the debts, arguing a breach of procedural fairness because the Ministry provided boilerplate responses and no proper reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Mavi, which held that the duty of fairness in these debt collection matters is minimal and does not require reasons.

The court found the Ministry considered individual circumstances and complied with the required procedural fairness obligations.