Roger R. Lafrenière

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissing her appeal of a refusal to grant her son a permanent resident visa.

The visa was refused because the son was found to have a common-law partner and thus did not meet the definition of a "dependent child" under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.

The Federal Court found the IAD's decision to be reasonable, noting that the son's inconsistent statements about his relationship undermined his credibility.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of India, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing his appeal from a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting his refugee claim.

While finding his allegations credible, the RPD concluded he had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Delhi or Faridabad.

The RAD upheld this finding.

The Federal Court found the RAD's decision reasonable, concluding the applicant failed to demonstrate that his agents of persecution (a wealthy man and police) had the motivation and capacity to locate him in the proposed IFAs, and that it would not be objectively unreasonable for him to relocate there given his professional experience.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants filed an application for leave and judicial review of a negative Refugee Appeal Division decision 37 days after it was mailed.

The Minister brought a motion to strike the application as being out of time.

The Court found this to be an exceptional case where it is plain and obvious the application is statute-barred, as no extension of time was sought and the motion was uncontested.

The application was dismissed.

The Respondents brought a motion for a lump sum award of costs or, implicitly, reconsideration of October 1, 2021 Orders that dismissed the underlying action without costs.

The Court found no error justifying reconsideration, noting that the Respondents failed to comply with an oral direction to bring their costs motion by October 31, 2019, and remained silent when draft orders were submitted.

The motion for costs was dismissed as the Court was functus officio and the motion lacked required supporting evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by Health Canada to refuse him a security clearance under the Cannabis Regulations, which he required for a producer's licence.

The refusal was based on police reports alleging his involvement with an unauthorized cannabis dispensary and related illegal activities.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the decision-maker owed only a low level of procedural fairness, which was met when the applicant was provided with a detailed summary of the police information and an opportunity to respond.

The Court also held that the decision was reasonable, as the decision-maker had reasonable grounds to suspect the applicant's involvement in prohibited cannabis activities and his risk to public safety based on the police reports, despite the applicant's denials.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing their appeal and confirming that they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

The determinative issue was whether the applicants had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in Colombia.

The Court held that the RAD did not commit any reviewable error in finding that the applicants would not face a section 97 risk in the proposed IFAs.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant applied for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division issuing an exclusion order against him for misrepresentation under paragraph 40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The applicant, who was in Canada on a visitor visa, applied to extend his stay to visit family but failed to disclose that he had accepted a conditional job offer and that his prospective employer had submitted an LMIA application.

The ID Member found that this omission breached the duty of candour as it could have induced an error in the administration of the Act.

The Federal Court found the decision reasonable, noting that the duty of candour requires full disclosure of material facts and that the applicant's reliance on a consultant or poor English did not excuse the omission.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Social Security Tribunal Appeal Division (SST-AD) denying an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.

The SST-AD had found that the application for leave was filed more than one year after the General Division's decision was communicated, barring the appeal under subsection 57(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act.

The Federal Court found no error in the SST-AD's factual findings or its conclusion that the legislation provided no discretion to extend the time limit.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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 decisions by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) cancelling his permanent residence application and denying his request for reconsideration.

The IRCC rejected the application because the applicant did not provide a diploma or degree as proof of his completed Canadian educational credential, even though he submitted a 'Certified Information' document from his university.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding that the IRCC's online instructions were confusing and misled the applicant into believing his submitted document was sufficient.

The Court concluded that it would have been simple for IRCC to contact the applicant to request a copy of his diploma, given the circumstances, and referred the matter back for reconsideration.

The applicant, a citizen of Cameroon, brought a motion to stay the execution of a removal order pending an application for leave and for judicial review of a decision refusing to defer her removal.

The applicant claimed she would face irreparable harm if returned to Cameroon due to her identity as an Anglophone and political opinions.

The Federal Court found that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm through new objective evidence of personalized risk.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicants, a mother and son, sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for an exemption from the requirement to obtain an immigration visa abroad on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

The mother had been a victim of domestic violence and they had applied for temporary resident permits for victims of family violence.

The Federal Court found that the officer made material errors, including misunderstanding the temporary nature of the TRP applications and misapprehending psychological evidence of the mother's adjustment disorder.

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a Senior Immigration Officer finding her inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 37(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for engaging in transnational criminal activity, specifically money laundering.

The applicant argued the Officer relied on an erroneous FINTRAC report and ignored explanations and an expert psychological report.

The Federal Court found the Officer's decision reasonable, noting the applicant acted as a platform to receive and distribute proceeds from wire fraud over three years.

The Court concluded the Officer's reliance on the FINTRAC report and her overall findings were justified and dismissed the application.

The applicant brought an urgent motion for a stay of his removal to Jamaica, scheduled two days after the motion's issuance.

The applicant had received removal instructions nearly a month earlier but delayed filing his deferral request and the motion, severely prejudicing the respondent.

The Court dismissed the motion, noting the failure to comply with the Court's Practice Guidelines for Urgent Stay Motions.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the Toth test, as his risk allegations had already been assessed and rejected in a prior Pre-Removal Risk Assessment, and the balance of convenience favored the public interest in enforcing the deportation order issued for serious criminality.

The applicant sought judicial review of an IRCC officer's decision denying her application for restoration of temporary resident status and a work permit.

The applicant's study permit expired and her subsequent application for a post-graduate work permit was refused.

She later filed an application for leave and for judicial review, arguing this suspended the 90-day limitation period to apply for restoration of status.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations clearly require a restoration application to be made within 90 days of the loss of status, and there is no automatic suspension of this period while pursuing legal proceedings before the Court.

The officer's conclusion that the application was submitted out of time was reasonable.

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

The applicant, a citizen of China, claimed persecution due to his opposition to the expropriation of his property.

The RAD found the applicant lacked credibility, determining that he was not in China during the time of the alleged protests and arrests, and that supporting documents were fraudulent.

The Federal Court held that the RAD's findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly given the applicant's travel history and contradictory statements to the CBSA.

The Court also found no procedural unfairness in the RAD's independent assessment of the documentary evidence or its refusal to hold an oral hearing based on new evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a PRRA officer's decision rejecting his application.

The applicant claimed a risk to his life in Albania due to a blood feud.

The PRRA officer dismissed the evidence as insufficient.

The Federal Court found that the officer made veiled credibility findings regarding the applicant's evidence without holding an oral hearing, rendering the decision unreasonable.

The application for judicial review was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that confirmed the rejection of her refugee claim.

The RAD found the applicant had a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) in the Philippines and refused to admit new evidence on appeal.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting the applicant failed to prove the proposed IFAs were unreasonable and that the RAD properly applied the criteria for admitting new evidence under s. 110(4) of the IRPA.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness applied for an urgent special sitting and an interim interim stay of a release order issued by the Immigration Division for the respondent.

The Court found a serious issue, irreparable harm, and a balance of inconvenience favouring the applicant.

An interim stay of the release order was granted for up to ten days, with a timeline set for serving and filing motion records.

The applicant, who was previously declared a vexatious litigant, filed three Notices of Application without first obtaining leave of the Court, intentionally misspelling his name to avoid detection.

The Court ordered the Notices of Application removed from the files pursuant to Rule 74 and deemed the proceedings nullities and void ab initio.