Prathima Prashad

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of inmates in federal penitentiaries who were subjected to suspicionless strip searches.

The plaintiffs alleged that the regulations authorizing these searches in certain situations were ultra vires the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, breached sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, and constituted torts including trespass to the person and intrusion upon seclusion.

The court dismissed all of Canada's objections and granted the motion for certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action, the class definition was appropriate, the proposed common issues were valid, a class action was the preferable procedure, and the litigation plan was workable.

The applicants, two sisters from Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the refusal of their refugee protection claims.

The applicants alleged fear of forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and persecution based on sexual orientation.

The RAD rejected the claims based on credibility issues arising from significant omissions and inconsistencies in the applicants' evidence.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings were reasonable, noting the applicants failed to establish the identity and influence of the men they were allegedly forced to marry, and failed to adequately explain inconsistencies regarding their father's actions and the associate applicant's sexual orientation.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Officer's decision refusing her application for a work permit and a Temporary Resident Permit under the Family Violence Initiative.

The Court found the decision unreasonable because the Officer misunderstood the nature of the request.

The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted to another Officer for determination.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting their refugee claims on the basis of insufficient credible evidence to establish their identities.

The RAD concluded that because the applicants provided fraudulent birth certificates, their Nigerian passports could not be relied upon to establish their identity.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision unreasonable because the RAD incorrectly stated that the principal applicant provided no other documents to establish her identity besides her passport, thereby fundamentally misapprehending the evidence.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division rejecting her appeal of a visa officer's refusal of her spousal sponsorship application.

The IAD found the relationship was not genuine and was entered into primarily for immigration purposes, citing inconsistent testimony regarding the couple's introduction by an aunt and the rapid development of the relationship.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the IAD had misapprehended evidence and its credibility findings were therefore unreasonable.

The applicant, a Mexican citizen who previously lived unlawfully in the United States and was deported to Mexico, entered Canada as a visitor and applied for a work permit.

A Visa Officer refused the application, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant would leave Canada at the end of his authorized stay.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Federal Court found the Officer's decision reasonable, noting the applicant's burden to demonstrate he would leave Canada and the lack of strong ties to the United States or Mexico.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants filed a motion to reconsider the Court's previous order refusing to hear their motion for a stay of removal.

The applicants sought to stay their removal while they pursued an application for leave and judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision and a removal order.

The Court dismissed the motion for reconsideration, finding no grounds under Rule 397 of the Federal Courts Rules.

The Applicants sought an extension of time to file an Application for Leave and Judicial Review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision, and a stay of their removal to South Korea.

The PRRA decision was received in July 2019, but the application was not filed until April 2021.

The Federal Court dismissed the request for an extension of time, finding the Applicants failed to meet the test set out in Hennelly.

Consequently, without an extension of time, the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion for a stay, which was also dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming an RPD decision that he was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.

The RAD dismissed the appeal largely due to credibility and plausibility findings.

The Federal Court found the RAD's plausibility findings—that the applicant would have asked his newspaper if it received threats, and that the Taliban would have been deterred from kidnapping the applicant by the presence of witnesses—unreasonable because they were speculative and not supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant, a citizen of Jamaica, sought judicial review of a negative pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).

He claimed his perceived wealth would put his life in danger from gun violence in Jamaica.

The PRRA officer concluded the risk was not personalized and lacked a nexus to grounds for refugee protection.

The Federal Court found the officer's decision reasonable, noting that perceived wealth does not establish personalized risk and the applicant provided no evidence of personal targeting.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division excluding her from refugee protection under section 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act due to serious criminality under Article 1F(b) of the Refugee Convention.

The RPD found that her use of fraudulently obtained refugee travel documents was equivalent to the Canadian offences of uttering a forged passport and identity fraud, and constituted serious crimes.

The Federal Court held the decision was unreasonable, concluding that a refugee travel document is not a passport and there was no evidence the genuine documents were forged.

The Court also found the RPD's reasoning regarding identity fraud and aggravating factors to be fundamentally flawed.

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

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision denying their application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

They argued the officer breached procedural fairness by relying on an updated publicly available country condition report not disclosed to them, and that the officer selectively assessed the evidence regarding hardship and the best interests of the children.

The Federal Court found no breach of procedural fairness in relying on the National Documentation Package and held the officer's assessment of the evidence and the internal flight alternative in Abuja was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Division decision dismissing her spousal sponsorship appeal.

The IAD found the marriage genuine but entered into primarily for acquiring immigration status.

The applicant argued the decision misunderstood the legal framework, misapprehended evidence, and relied on discriminatory stereotypes regarding the spouse's HIV status.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the IAD's assessment of the primary purpose of the marriage reasonable and supported by the spouse's significant immigration history and conduct aimed at remaining in Canada.