Sébastien Grammond

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing his refugee claim.

The applicant, an Afghan citizen with refugee status in Italy, alleged he was targeted by the Mafia in Italy following a dispute with his employees.

The Court found the RAD's conclusions that the applicant was not targeted by the Mafia, lacked subjective fear, and failed to rebut the presumption of state protection were reasonable.

The RAD also reasonably rejected new evidence regarding the Mafia under the Raza/Singh framework.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the rejection of their refugee claim.

The principal applicant alleged extortion by a criminal cartel in Colombia.

The RAD found credibility issues with his testimony and concluded there was no nexus to a nationwide organization, finding a viable internal flight alternative (IFA).

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings and IFA analysis reasonable, dismissing the application for judicial review.

The applicants, recently elected councillors of Carry the Kettle First Nation, sought an interlocutory stay of their removal from office and of an upcoming by-election pending their applications for judicial review.

The remaining council members had removed them in meetings the applicants argued lacked both quorum and the required two-thirds majority under the Nation's Custom Election Act.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Federal Court found a strong prima facie case that the removal was procedurally invalid due to lack of quorum and qualified majority.

The respondents conceded irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the applicants given the public interest in democratic continuity and the rule of law within the First Nation.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The applicant applied for a visa to study in Canada.

A visa officer denied the application on the basis of misrepresentation under section 40 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, finding that the proof of funds provided by the applicant's mother was fraudulent following verification with the issuing bank.

The applicant sought judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application, concluding the decision was unreasonable and procedurally unfair.

The record lacked any clear or convincing evidence or explanation justifying the finding that the initial bank letter was not authentic.

Furthermore, the procedural fairness letter was deficient in not specifying the dual concerns regarding accuracy and authenticity, and the officer failed to genuinely consider the applicant's explanation that the funds had simply been moved and the initial letter was out of date.

The applicant applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds based on hardship as a bisexual person in Colombia and establishment in Canada.

The officer refused the application.

The Federal Court found the officer's assessment of establishment and country conditions reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicants, citizens of India residing in the United Arab Emirates on temporary status, applied for visitor visas to Canada.

A visa officer refused the application, finding that the applicants' significant family ties in Canada and temporary status in the UAE reduced their ties to their country of residence.

The applicants sought judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the officer reasonably balanced the relevant factors, including the recent and limited nature of the principal applicant's establishment in the UAE.

The applicant sought judicial review of a negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision, alleging her former counsel was incompetent for failing to submit certain evidence.

The Court dismissed the application, finding that the new evidence (regarding her alleged conversion to Christianity, domestic abuse, health issues, and sur place claim) largely pre-dated the rejection of her original refugee claim and would have been inadmissible on a PRRA.

The applicant failed to establish a reasonable probability that the outcome of her PRRA application would have been different with the new evidence.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Canada Revenue Agency decision determining she was ineligible for the Canada Recovery Benefit and Canada Recovery Sickness Benefit.

The officer found the applicant failed to prove she earned at least $5,000 in self-employment income from selling her artwork in cash, as she provided insufficient documentary evidence.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the officer's decision reasonable under the Vavilov framework, noting the applicant refused to provide client contact information or other typical business records to substantiate her handwritten receipts.

The applicant, a former colonel in the Burundian Armed Forces, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division finding him inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for complicity in crimes against humanity.

The ID found that the applicant, as second-in-command of a battalion, made a significant and knowing contribution to a 2002 massacre of civilians in Itaba.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the ID's conclusion reasonable and properly applying the Ezokola factors.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Piikani Nation Removal Appeals Board dismissing a petition to remove a councillor over allegations of bribery and breach of piikanissini.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the Board's interpretation of piikanissini and its treatment of the evidence were reasonable.

The Court also found that the Board's adaptations to the hearing process did not breach procedural fairness.

The applicant sought a stay of execution of his removal to Angola, alleging risk of torture or death due to his political activities.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.

The Court noted that previous decision-makers found the applicant not credible, and the new evidence presented (including arrest warrants and an affidavit from a former intelligence agent) was insufficient or lacked credibility to establish the alleged risk.

The applicant sought a remedy under section 77 of the Official Languages Act, alleging the respondent airport authority failed to communicate in French on its website and social media.

The Federal Court held the respondent breached its language duties, finding its online communications are subject to both section 22 as a head office and section 23 as services to the travelling public.

The Court ordered the respondent to pay $5,000 in damages for deterrence and vindication, alongside $6,000 in costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Muskeg Lake Cree Nation Appeal Tribunal dismissing his appeal of the March 2021 election.

He argued that the use of electronic voting was contrary to the First Nation's Election Act and required an amendment by referendum.

The Federal Court held that the Appeal Tribunal's interpretation of the Election Act, which treated electronic voting as a form of authorized "distance balloting", was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness sought judicial review of two decisions of the Immigration Division ordering the release of the respondent, who had been detained pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The ID had found that the respondent's harsh conditions of detention, including prolonged isolation during a COVID-19 outbreak, warranted his release, despite acknowledging he posed a danger to the public and a flight risk.

The Federal Court allowed the applications for judicial review, finding that while the ID's assessment of the factors favouring release was not unreasonable, its failure to impose conditions to mitigate the danger the respondent posed to the public made the release decisions unreasonable.

The applicant sought a stay of his removal to Mexico after an enforcement officer denied his request for a deferral.

The applicant argued that his removal would cause irreparable harm to his son, who was experiencing a severe psychological crisis with a risk of suicide.

The Court found that the officer unreasonably minimized the evidence of the son's suicide risk and inappropriately blamed the parents' undocumented status for the children's difficulties.

The motion for a stay was granted pending a decision on the underlying judicial review application.

The applicant applied for judicial review of a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) decision determining he was not at risk of persecution in Bangladesh.

The officer had discounted the probative value of charge sheets showing the applicant was wanted by police, solely due to a minor inconsistency regarding the applicant's age.

The Federal Court granted the application, finding it unreasonable for the officer to discount the evidence based on a clerical error that had no bearing on the underlying fact being proved.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) dismissing her appeal of a visa officer's refusal of her application to sponsor her husband for permanent residence.

The IAD found the marriage was not genuine and was entered into primarily for immigration purposes, relying heavily on a statement in the husband's 2011 visitor visa application.

The Federal Court held that the IAD's decision was unreasonable because it failed to provide adequate justification for its reliance on the 2011 visa application and improperly discounted corroborating evidence of communication and cohabitation.

The application for judicial review was granted and the matter remitted for redetermination.

The applicant sought judicial review of the refusal of her permanent residence application in the Quebec investor class.

The visa officer refused the application on the basis that the applicant had not demonstrated a genuine intention to reside in Quebec, citing her failure to visit the province despite undertakings to do so, and her lack of a concrete establishment plan.

The Federal Court held the officer's assessment of the applicant's intention to reside was reasonable and supported by the lack of concrete evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing his appeal.

The applicant's initial refugee claim was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division on credibility grounds, with a finding of no credible basis.

This Court previously found the lack of credible basis finding unreasonable and remitted the matter.

The RPD, without a new hearing, issued a new decision finding a credible basis but maintaining the adverse credibility findings.

The RAD dismissed the applicant's appeal, concluding there was no breach of procedural fairness by the RPD in not holding a new hearing.

The applicant failed to appear at the judicial review hearing.

The Court determined the case on written submissions and dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a breach of procedural fairness.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their refugee claim based on adverse credibility findings.

The RAD found a contradiction between the principal applicant's description of his injuries and a medical report stating he was unconscious upon hospital admission.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, holding that the RAD's credibility assessment was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The Court also rejected the argument that the RAD was required to remit the matter to the Refugee Protection Division, noting the RAD's authority to make its own assessment.