Roger R. Lafrenière

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against SATA Internacional – Azores Airlines for failing to pay compensation under European Union Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 for delayed flights to and from Canada, framing the claim as a breach of contract.

The defendant moved to strike the claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The Federal Court held that the claim was not founded on Canadian federal law, as required by section 23 of the Federal Courts Act and the Montreal Convention's exclusivity principle.

The court granted the motion to strike without leave to amend and dismissed the certification motion.

The plaintiffs brought an action seeking restitution of royalties paid to SOCAN for the transmission of ringtones, arguing the payments were not legally required following Supreme Court of Canada decisions finding that downloading a musical work is not a communication to the public by telecommunication.

The court dismissed the action, applying the doctrine of issue estoppel based on a prior Federal Court of Appeal decision that upheld the Copyright Board's certification of the ringtone tariff, and finding that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by a 2010 settlement agreement.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim, finding that the certified tariff and the settlement agreement provided juristic reasons for the payments.

SOCAN's counterclaim for unpaid royalties was granted in part.

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

The RPD and RAD found that the applicant failed to establish his identity as an Eritrean national and that his evidence was not credible.

The Federal Court found that the RAD reasonably assessed the evidence, including concluding that a submitted birth certificate was not genuine and assigning little weight to vague support letters.

The Court held that the RAD's credibility findings and ultimate determination on identity were reasonable.

The applicant, a non-status Indigenous child living off-reserve, sought judicial review of a decision by the Jordan's Principle Appeals Committee denying his request for funding for medical and educational services.

The Committee had denied the request because the applicant did not meet the eligibility criteria under the Standard Operating Procedures, as he was not a registered Indian, not eligible to be registered, and not ordinarily resident on reserve.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Committee did not breach procedural fairness and its decision was reasonable.

The Court also held that the Eligibility Policy itself, which was developed in consultation with stakeholders, was a reasonable exercise of executive policy discretion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Social Security Tribunal's Appeal Division (AD) refusing him leave to appeal a General Division (GD) decision.

The GD had upheld the Commission's determination that the applicant was not entitled to employment insurance benefits received while outside Canada, requiring repayment of $13,570.00 and imposing a penalty.

The applicant conceded his ineligibility but argued mitigating circumstances.

The Federal Court found the AD's decision reasonable, noting the GD had already reduced the penalty due to his circumstances.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

In an ongoing patent infringement trial, the Defendant moved to reopen the evidentiary record before closing arguments to adduce additional expert evidence regarding the full cost approach to an accounting of profits.

The motion was prompted by the recent Federal Court of Appeal decision in Nova Chemicals, which the Defendant argued fundamentally changed the governing law.

The Court applied the test to reopen a trial, finding that the proposed evidence could change the result and could not have reasonably been obtained earlier given the state of the law prior to Nova Chemicals.

The Court granted the motion, as well as the Plaintiff's cross-motion to file reply expert evidence.

The applicant, a Haitian citizen with permanent resident status in Brazil, applied for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the rejection of his refugee claim under Article 1E of the Convention.

He argued the RAD unreasonably assessed the risk of persecution for Haitians in Brazil.

The Federal Court found the RAD reasonably concluded that the discrimination the applicant alleged did not amount to persecution, as it did not constitute a serious, systematic, and repeated violation of core human rights.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of an RCMP Conduct Board decision directing him to resign or be discharged.

The respondent Attorney General of Canada moved to strike the application on the ground that it was premature because the applicant had not exhausted his statutory right of appeal under the RCMP Act.

The applicant argued the internal appeal process was inadequate and too slow, but provided no evidence to support this claim regarding his specific case.

The Federal Court granted the motion to strike, emphasizing that judicial review is a tool of last resort and the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances to bypass the administrative process.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Matimekush-Lac John Innu Nation election Appeal Board invalidating the July 4, 2019, band council election.

The Appeal Board found the electoral officer failed to apply a residency requirement but provided no analysis or reference to the evidence regarding the chief-elect's residency, and improperly invalidated the election of the councillors against whom no complaints were made.

The Federal Court allowed the application, set aside the Appeal Board's decision, declared the four councillors duly elected, and remitted the issue of the chief-elect's eligibility to a newly constituted board.

The plaintiffs, members of the Kehewin Band reinstated to Indian status under Bill C-31, brought a motion for default judgment to assess damages against the Kehewin Band and Kehewin Band Council for discriminating against them and denying them the benefits of band membership.

The Court previously struck the defendants' statement of defence and granted a declaration of entitlement to band membership.

The central issue was whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claims for damages against the band defendants.

Applying the test from ITO-Int’l Terminal Operators v. Miida Electronics, the Court found no statutory grant of jurisdiction under s. 17(4) or s. 17(5)(b) of the Federal Courts Act, as there were no conflicting claims against the Crown, nor was the band acting as an agent of the Crown.

Consequently, the Court held it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and dismissed the motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) finding him inadmissible to Canada due to membership in the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

The applicant argued that the IAD breached procedural fairness by making a credibility finding without an oral hearing and that its weighing of evidence was unreasonable.

The Federal Court held that the IAD did not breach procedural fairness as the applicant's counsel agreed to proceed in writing and did not call witnesses.

The Court also found the IAD's decision reasonable, noting a broad interpretation of "member" and sufficient evidence of the applicant declaring himself a demobilized FARC member to receive benefits.