4 total
Judicial review allowed; RAD erred by failing to consider whether to hold a hearing after admitting new evidence.
The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting their refugee claim.
The RAD had admitted new evidence (an affidavit from the principal applicant) under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act but did not analyze whether an oral hearing was required under subsection 110(6).
The Federal Court found this omission to be a determinative error, rendering the decision unreasonable.
The application for judicial review was allowed.
Judicial review allowed; IAD assessment of humanitarian and compassionate grounds was unreasonable.
The Minister applied for judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) allowing the respondent's appeal against a departure order.
The respondent, a permanent resident, had failed to comply with his residency obligation under s. 28 of the IRPA due to extended work abroad.
The IAD set aside the departure order on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, finding that his part-time work for a Canadian business and charitable work in Africa justified his absence.
The Federal Court held the IAD's decision unreasonable for relying on irrelevant factors, failing to consider the reasons for his early departure, improperly excusing non-compliance based on ignorance of the law, and incorrectly assessing his establishment in Canada without evidence.
The application for judicial review was allowed and the matter remitted for reconsideration.
Judicial review of IAD removal order allowed due to fatal error in assessment.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissing his appeal of a removal order for misrepresentation under s. 40(1)(a) of the IRPA.
The applicant had failed to disclose a Jordanian passport to Canadian authorities.
The IAD rejected his appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The parties acknowledged that the IAD erred by raising unprompted doubts about the authenticity of CIC's documents and improperly using those doubts to draw a negative credibility inference against the applicant, which tainted its H&C assessment.
The Federal Court found this error fatal to the reasonableness of the decision and allowed the application.
Motion for stay of removal dismissed due to weak evidence of harm.
The applicants, Romanian citizens of Roma ethnicity, sought a stay of their scheduled removal to Romania.
They argued their withdrawal of asylum claims at the airport was involuntary and obtained without counsel.
The Federal Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that while the applicants raised a serious issue, they failed to establish irreparable harm given their lack of supporting evidence in their PRRA applications and prior declaration of safety.
The balance of convenience favoured the respondent's duty to enforce immigration laws, particularly considering the applicants' criminal records and apparent attempts to evade Romanian authorities.
