4 total
Declarations granted requiring Canada to take steps to repatriate citizens detained in Syria.
The applicants, four Canadian men detained in northeastern Syria for suspected ISIS affiliation, applied for an order compelling the Canadian government to repatriate them.
The Federal Court found that the applicants' Charter section 6(1) mobility rights required the government to make a formal request for their repatriation, provide emergency travel documents, and appoint a representative for their handover.
The application was allowed in part and declaratory relief was granted.
The court vacated the applicant's unpaid victim fine surcharges but declined to grant a class-wide remedy.
The applicants sought an order for restitution and vacating of victim fine surcharges imposed between 2013 and 2018, following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Boudreault which found the surcharge unconstitutional.
The court granted the order vacating the unpaid surcharges for the applicant, Serge Parent, finding it just and appropriate under s. 24(1) of the Charter, and that the limitation period had not expired.
However, the court dismissed the request for restitution of already paid surcharges and the broader class remedy, noting that s. 24(1) is for personal remedies and that government measures had ameliorated some harms.
Interlocutory injunction against new firearms regulations dismissed for lack of irreparable harm.
The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction staying the operation of regulations prohibiting certain firearms pending the outcome of their applications for judicial review.
The Federal Court dismissed the motions, finding the applicants failed to demonstrate with clear and non-speculative evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.
Statement of claim alleging government laser radiation attacks struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim and dismiss the action.
The self-represented plaintiff alleged that government secret agents had been attacking him with remote-controlled laser radiation and conducting unauthorized surveillance as part of a conspiracy.
The court found the allegations to be incurable and incapable of being substantiated in a court of law.
Applying the 'plain and obvious' test, the court struck the statement of claim without leave to amend and dismissed the action, making no order as to costs.