Paul Favel

The applicants, a husband and wife, applied for judicial review of decisions denying a study permit and an open work permit.

The officer found the study plan vague and the origin of funds unclear, and relied on general political and economic conditions in Iran.

The Court found the officer's reasons regarding the funds lacked intelligibility and that the study plan finding ignored evidence.

The Court held the study permit decision was unreasonable, and consequently, the open work permit decision, which depended on the study permit, was also unreasonable.

The applications for judicial review were allowed and remitted for redetermination.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Acting Executive Director of the Canadian Judicial Council to dismiss his complaint against a superior court judge.

The Executive Director dismissed the complaint at the early screening stage, finding it raised judicial matters rather than conduct issues.

The Federal Court held that the Executive Director had the delegated authority to screen complaints and that the decision to dismiss the complaint was reasonable.

The applicant, a citizen of Ghana who claims to be bisexual, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal.

The RAD upheld the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the applicant lacked credibility due to inconsistencies in his evidence regarding his sexuality.

On judicial review, the applicant argued the RAD erred by failing to consider his perceived sexuality and a risk posed by a group called the Land Guards.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the RAD reasonably did not consider these issues because the applicant failed to raise them in his appeal to the RAD.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a single-member panel of the Nekaneet Appeal Body dismissing his appeal of the First Nation's election results without a hearing.

The applicant alleged that the electoral officer failed to properly lock and seal ballot boxes and that the appeal body member was biased due to a leasing relationship with a band entity.

The Federal Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias, as the leasing relationship did not reach the threshold of materiality.

The Court also held that the appeal body member properly exercised his jurisdiction under the Nekaneet Governance Act in determining that the allegations of missing locks and seals were speculative and did not establish a legal basis to overturn the election or warrant a hearing.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision denying their refugee claim based on a fear of female genital mutilation in Nigeria.

The applicants argued the RAD erred in refusing to admit new evidence and in its credibility findings.

The Federal Court found the RAD reasonably applied the test for new evidence under section 110(4) of the IRPA.

The Court also held the RAD conducted a reasonable credibility assessment, did not ignore evidence regarding affidavits or psychological reports, and respected the Chairperson Guidelines 4.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants applied for judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal for refugee protection.

The principal applicant claimed a fear of domestic abuse from her husband in Nigeria and that her daughter faced a risk of forced female genital mutilation.

The RAD found a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Port Harcourt.

The Federal Court held the RAD's IFA assessment was reasonable and that the RAD's reference to the revoked Nigeria Jurisprudential Guide did not render the decision unreasonable as the RAD independently assessed the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a preliminary determination of two questions of law regarding a subrogated claim for indebtedness under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act (AMPA).

The Court held that the Manitoba Pork Credit Corporation was an "administrator" within the meaning of s. 2(1) of AMPA, as it is a legal person with the power to sue and be sued in its own name, regardless of extra-provincial registration in Alberta.

The Court also determined that the individual defendants' execution of the repayment agreement constituted an indemnity, not a guarantee, rendering them personally liable despite lacking a certificate under Alberta's Guarantees Acknowledgement Act.

The applicants, citizens of Albania, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their appeal of a Refugee Protection Division decision denying their claims for refugee protection.

The applicants claimed fear of a private businessperson but had not reported the threat to the police, claiming subjective distrust.

The RAD found that state protection was the determinative issue and that the applicants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection by failing to report the incidents to the police.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the RAD's assessment of state protection to be reasonable and its denial of an oral hearing justified given the absence of new evidence.

The applicant, an inmate, sought judicial review of a decision by a Special Advisor denying his final level grievance regarding urinalysis testing procedures, consent forms for medical disclosure, and the grievance process itself.

He argued procedural fairness was breached when he was denied an interview at the final grievance stage and that the decision was unreasonable.

The Federal Court found no procedural fairness breach, noting that guidelines and regulations did not strictly mandate an interview at the final level, especially since one was held initially.

Applying the reasonableness standard, the Court held the Special Advisor addressed the applicant's concerns appropriately, grounding the decision in the relevant provisions of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and Regulations.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, a family from Colombia, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision denying their refugee claims.

They alleged persecution by the ELN due to the principal applicant's refusal to cooperate with them while working as a blood donation coordinator.

The RPD found they were victims of crime without a nexus to a Convention ground and that they had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Sincelejo.

The Federal Court found the RPD's determinations on both the lack of nexus and the viable IFA were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.