Sébastien Grammond

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.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision refusing their application for relief based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

The Court found the decision unreasonable on two grounds.

First, the officer failed to properly analyze the best interests of the children by merely noting their basic needs would be met.

Second, the officer improperly downplayed the general conditions in Haiti by requiring the applicants to demonstrate how they would be particularly affected.

The application for judicial review was allowed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision affirming the Refugee Protection Division's finding that he had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Sylhet, Bangladesh.

The applicant argued the RAD unreasonably rejected new evidence and erred in concluding the agent of persecution lacked a national reach.

The Federal Court held the RAD reasonably concluded the applicant's new evidence regarding fraudulent newspaper articles and an attack on his brother lacked credibility and therefore was inadmissible under the Singh framework.

The Court further found the RAD reasonably determined the agent of persecution's reach was limited to the applicant's home district.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' application for judicial review concerning decisions about their employment insurance eligibility as mortgage representatives for Desjardins.

The motion was granted in part.

The Court struck the claims for damages and costs incurred in other proceedings, as the Federal Court cannot award damages on judicial review.

However, the Court refused to strike the remainder of the application, finding it was not completely bereft of any chance of success, particularly regarding allegations of interference with the independence of decision-makers.

The defendants, the Canadian Judicial Council and Marc Giroux, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim, which alleged gross negligence in the handling of his complaints against certain judges.

The Court granted the motion on the basis that the Council and its Executive Director are protected by immunity from civil liability in the performance of their statutory duties, absent allegations of bad faith, which were not present.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the moving defendants.

The applicant sought judicial review of the federal government's policy requiring COVID-19 vaccination for public servants, alleging the SARS-CoV-2 virus does not exist.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the application.

The Court took judicial notice of the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, finding it to be a notorious and indisputable fact.

As the applicant's central premise contradicted a judicially noticed fact, the application was found to be bereft of any possibility of success and was struck.

The applicant brought a motion to stay her scheduled removal to the Netherlands, arguing that her removal would cause irreparable harm to her Canadian-born daughter by leaving the child vulnerable before a guardianship order was in place for the aunt.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding no non-speculative evidence of irreparable harm.

Child Protective Services did not object to the child remaining with the aunt, and the applicant could participate in the upcoming guardianship hearing remotely.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Immigration Division decision refusing to order the Minister to disclose communications with South Sudanese officials regarding the issuance of travel documents.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding that the Immigration Division breached procedural fairness by disregarding the disclosure obligations established in Brown.

The Court ordered the Minister to disclose the communications and reassess other evidence in its possession for relevance.

The applicant sought a stay of her scheduled removal to Hong Kong, arguing her pending spousal sponsorship application warranted a deferral.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding the officer's decision to deny deferral was not unreasonable.

The spousal sponsorship application was not timely as it was submitted after the applicant became removal ready, and short-term deferral requests are not the proper forum for rearguing broader humanitarian and compassionate considerations.

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought a stay of his removal pending judicial review of a deferral officer's decision.

He submitted new evidence of a same-sex relationship, arguing he faced risk of persecution upon return.

The deferral officer had dismissed the new evidence as pertaining to a risk previously assessed by the Refugee Protection Division.

The Federal Court found the officer erred by failing to consider whether new evidence could overcome previous negative risk findings, establishing a serious issue.

Concluding that removal would expose the applicant to irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured him, the Court granted the stay of removal.

The Minister of Agriculture sought summary judgment to recover amounts paid under a guarantee for agricultural advances.

The defendants opposed, arguing the limitation period may have expired for the first advance because the payment date was imprecisely sworn as 'on or about July 31, 2014.' The Court found this created a genuine issue for trial for the first advance but granted summary judgment for the second advance, where the timing was not in issue.

Two First Nations (the Sister Nations) moved to adjourn the hearing of an application for judicial review of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' decision to discontinue fish farming operations.

The Sister Nations sought to wait for the outcome of their appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal regarding their denied request to be added as parties.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion for adjournment, finding that the Sister Nations failed to show they would suffer serious prejudice if the hearing proceeded, while a delay would cause significant prejudice to the applicants who faced a looming deadline to decommission their operations.

The self-represented plaintiff appealed an order made by a prothonotary that directed a status review of her action.

The prothonotary made the order because the plaintiff repeatedly failed to produce and serve copies of her documents, despite several extensions and a clear warning.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the prothonotary's decision was a reasonable exercise of case management discretion and that there was no breach of procedural fairness.

The applicants, citizens of Syria, sought judicial review of a migration officer's decision refusing their applications for refugee status under the country of asylum class.

The officer concluded that the applicants had a durable solution in Armenia, were untruthful during their interviews, and provided falsified documents regarding their religious affiliation and ethnicity.

The Federal Court dismissed the applications, finding the officer's credibility and factual determinations to be reasonable.

The appellant applied to the Minister of Indigenous Services to invalidate his brother's will, arguing lack of testamentary capacity due to alcoholism and that devising reserve land outside the family was contrary to Okanagan Indian Band custom.

The Minister dismissed the application.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of testamentary capacity and insufficient evidence of the alleged custom.

The Minister sought judicial review of an Immigration Division decision releasing the respondent from immigration detention on conditions.

The respondent, who had a significant criminal record and a history of non-compliance, was ordered to reside at a halfway house and be supervised by three bondspersons.

The Minister argued the conditions were insufficient to mitigate flight risk and danger to the public, particularly challenging the suitability of the bondspersons, the lack of a current psychological assessment, and the upcoming end of the respondent's criminal sentence.

The Federal Court found the Immigration Division's decision reasonable, noting it had properly balanced the risk factors and imposed conditions as stringent as a prior release plan.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a member and former chief of the First Nation residing off-reserve, challenged an election code provision restricting the right to vote to members residing on the reserve.

The Federal Court held the residency requirement was discriminatory under section 15 of the Charter, as it perpetuated historic disadvantage and treated off-reserve members as less worthy of participating in band governance.

The First Nation offered no section 1 justification.

The Court declared the residency requirement of no force or effect, but did not invalidate past elections or council decisions.

The applicant, a musician in the Canadian Forces, sought judicial review of a decision by the Final Authority rejecting his grievance regarding delayed promotion due to a change in ranking policy.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable for failing to engage with the Military Grievances External Review Committee's findings.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, relying on its reasons in a companion case, Denneboom v Canada, finding the Final Authority's decision unreasonable.

The matter was returned to the Final Authority for reconsideration.

The applicant, a military musician in the Canadian Forces, grieved the denial of a promotion to Sergeant after a new ranking policy replaced the previous policy.

The Military Grievances External Review Committee recommended allowing the grievance, but the Final Authority dismissed it.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, holding that the Final Authority's decision was unreasonable because it failed to adequately justify its departure from the Committee's recommendations regarding the fairness of the transition period and unreasonably assessed the applicant's eligibility for an Acting/Lacking promotion under the applicable policies.

The applicant, who successfully challenged a First Nation's decision to postpone its election and the validity of federal regulations allowing such postponement, sought costs from the First Nation and the Attorney General on a solicitor-client basis or an elevated scale.

The respondents argued for no costs due to divided success or requested that only the Attorney General bear the costs.

The Federal Court rejected the arguments for divided success and solicitor-client costs but awarded elevated costs in a lump sum, finding the challenge to the regulations raised important issues of public interest affecting First Nations nationwide.

The Court ordered the Attorney General to pay $20,000 and the First Nation to pay $10,000 to the applicant, and dismissed the First Nation's claim for costs against the Attorney General.