Rachel Hepburn Craig

The applicants, citizens of Jamaica, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) denying their claim for refugee protection.

The claim was based on fear of persecution from the principal applicant's former boyfriend.

The RAD made a negative credibility finding based on a mistake in the name of the agent of persecution in the principal applicant's narrative, which the applicants explained as an administrative error.

The Federal Court held that the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting that the error undermined the reliability of other parts of the applicants' evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of the Philippines residing and working in the UAE, applied for a Canadian study permit for a one-year post-graduate program.

A visa officer refused the application under subsection 216(1) of the IRPR, doubting she would leave Canada based on the purpose of her visit and her family ties.

On judicial review, the Federal Court found the officer's decision unreasonable.

The officer improperly required the new program to be at a higher level than the applicant's prior degree and ignored evidence from the employer showing the program would benefit her employment.

The officer also failed to rationally assess the applicant's family ties to the Philippines and lacked an evidential basis for finding ties to Canada.

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

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision denying their humanitarian and compassionate application following a failed refugee claim.

The officer found insufficient evidence of establishment, disproportionate hardship, or that the best interests of the children required relief.

The Federal Court held the officer's analysis was reasonable and the reasons were adequate, dismissing the application.

The applicants, a Nigerian family, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision denying their refugee claims.

They alleged risk from a former business partner.

The RAD admitted new evidence but ultimately found it unreliable and declined to hold an oral hearing, upholding the Refugee Protection Division's finding of a viable internal flight alternative.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's treatment of the new evidence unimpeachable, its refusal of an oral hearing within its discretion given the unreliability of the evidence, and its finding on internal flight alternatives reasonable.

The applicant, a citizen of India whose study permit had expired, applied for a post-graduate work permit (PGWP) and restoration of status.

The application was refused because she did not hold a valid study permit when applying, as required by the new Program Delivery Instructions.

She applied for judicial review, arguing the officer misapplied the instructions and breached procedural fairness.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer reasonably concluded the applicant did not qualify because she lacked valid temporary status and had not applied for restoration within the required 90-day period.

The Court also held no procedural fairness was breached as the officer was not required to provide an opportunity for further submissions regarding eligibility criteria.

The applicants, a mother and minor daughter from Colombia, sought judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision denying their refugee claims on the basis of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA).

They alleged a well-founded fear of persecution by the Urabeños, a neo-paramilitary group.

The Federal Court, applying the Vavilov standard of reasonableness, upheld the RPD's findings that the applicants did not face a serious possibility of persecution in the proposed IFA and that it was not unreasonable for them to relocate there.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the Refugee Protection Division's finding that they are neither refugees nor persons in need of protection.

The RAD concluded the principal applicants were excluded from refugee protection under Article 1E of the Convention because they had permanent resident status in Venezuela which they voluntarily allowed to lapse.

The Federal Court found the RAD reasonably applied the relevant factors from the Zeng framework and reasonably rejected the applicants' credibility based on their travel history and lack of corroborating evidence for alleged risks in Venezuela.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a political refugee, sued the federal government for damages arising from a mistaken 1994 arrest based on a cancelled deportation order, which led to a loss of social benefits for many years.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the claim as statute-barred.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered his claim in 2012 when an immigration lawyer investigated the matter and the government acknowledged the mistake.

Because the plaintiff did not commence his action until 2017, well beyond the two-year limitation period, the court granted the motion and dismissed the action as statute-barred.

The applicant, a failed refugee claimant from Sri Lanka, sought an emergency interim injunction in the Superior Court of Justice to stay his removal after the Federal Court dismissed a similar application earlier the same day.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, holding that it should defer to the Federal Court, which has primary jurisdiction over immigration matters and provides an effective remedy.

The court also found that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm to meet the test for an injunction.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant abandoned his claim for Wallace damages against one of the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found that the facts pleaded did not support a claim for punitive damages against that respondent.

The Court also refused to grant leave to amend the statement of claim to plead negligent investigation, as there was no evidence the appellant was dismissed due to such an investigation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the lower court.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's decision, and that the proposed appeal did not raise matters of general importance due to the exceptional factual circumstances of the case.

The court also dismissed the defendants' motion for security for costs, as there was no good reason to believe the plaintiff's action was frivolous and vexatious.

Given the mixed results, no costs were awarded.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2004 and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, housekeeping, and rehabilitation benefits for retraining as a massage therapist.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's impairments fell within the Pre-Approved Framework (PAF) Guidelines and that her retraining was not reasonable and necessary.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had significant pre-existing chronic pain from prior accidents and that her decision to retrain was for personal insight rather than vocational rehabilitation.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not meet the burden of proving entitlement to further benefits beyond the PAF maximums.

All claims were dismissed.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After his representative withdrew due to a breakdown in communication, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

As no evidence or submissions were presented on his behalf, the arbitrator found the application had been abandoned.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses of the arbitration fixed at $2,000.63.