Sébastien Grammond

The Minister applied for judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) decision finding the respondent, a former Moldovan police officer, not inadmissible to Canada.

The Minister alleged the respondent was inadmissible under s. 35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act due to widespread torture by the Moldovan police, constituting a crime against humanity.

The IAD held that under the Rome Statute and the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, a crime against humanity requires a "State or organizational policy," which was absent here.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the IAD reasonably concluded that the policy requirement displaced earlier Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence (Mugesera) that pre-dated the Rome Statute.

The plaintiffs brought an action in damages against various federal government organizations, employees, and a trustee in bankruptcy arising from a tax dispute that allegedly led to their bankruptcy.

The plaintiffs appealed two orders of a case management prothonotary: one prioritizing the defendants' motions to strike, and another striking out the statement of claim without leave to amend for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and being an abuse of process.

The Federal Court dismissed the appeals, finding the prothonotary exercised her discretion reasonably in case management and made no palpable and overriding error in striking out the rambling and disjointed statement of claim.

The applicant, a member of the Ocean Man First Nation, sought judicial review in the form of a writ of quo warranto to remove the chief and council from office.

She argued that the chief was suspended at a membership meeting and that the council had invalidly extended its term.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no legal basis or broad community consensus for the purported suspension, and that the council validly extended its term pursuant to the First Nations Election Cancellation and Postponement Regulations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applicants sought judicial review to remove the respondents from the Shxwhá:y Village First Nation council based on resolutions passed at a membership meeting.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

The court held that the matter was moot concerning four councillors facing an impending election.

Regarding the fifth councillor, the court found the membership meeting was improperly convened without authority for proxy voting and failed to reflect a broad community consensus.

Furthermore, the court found the applicants were funded by a private entity seeking retaliation, disentitling them to any discretionary remedy.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division declaring him inadmissible to Canada due to his membership in the Bangladesh National Party.

The Division found the party to be an organization engaging in terrorism under section 34 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act because of violence occurring during general strikes (hartals).

The Federal Court granted the application, finding the Division's decision unreasonable because it failed to apply the correct specific intent test for terrorism and did not provide sufficient evidence linking isolated acts of violence to the intent of the party's leadership.

The applicants, citizens of El Salvador, sought refugee protection but were rejected on the basis they could acquire Nicaraguan citizenship through the principal applicant's father.

The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application for the mother, finding no breach of procedural fairness and agreeing she could obtain citizenship by mere formalities.

However, the Court granted the application for her children, finding the RAD's conclusion that they could benefit from their mother's eventual acquisition of citizenship was speculative and unsupported by evidence.

The applicants, a mother and her two sons, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) refusing their refugee claims.

The mother's daughters' claims had been accepted based on a fear of being subjected to female genital mutilation by their in-laws in Guinea.

The RAD had found the mother would not face risk if she returned to her country.

The Federal Court allowed the application for judicial review with respect to the mother, finding her claim and her daughters' claims were inextricably linked, rendering the RAD's premise that she could return alone unreasonable.

The application was dismissed with respect to the two sons, as there was no evidence they faced personal risk or that their claims were inextricably linked to the mother's.

The applicant First Nations applied to register an arbitration award and for a declaration voiding releases and indemnities in their Treaty Land Entitlement Agreements pursuant to the Manitoba Framework Agreement (MFA).

An adjudicator previously found that Canada committed an event of default by halting the reserve creation process to consult with the Métis without first amending the MFA.

Canada acknowledged the default but argued the Court should exercise its discretion to decline the declaration.

The Federal Court directed registration of the award and issued the declaration, holding that Canada's unilateral change to the MFA process constituted a significant breach, and that refusing the remedy bargained for would be contrary to contractual justice and the honour of the Crown.

The applicant, a member of the Pessamit Innu First Nation, sought a certificate of possession under section 20 of the Indian Act for a parcel of reserve land allotted to her by the band council in 2007.

Both the council and the Department of Indigenous Services refused the request.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review in the nature of mandamus.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding that the council had only intended to grant the applicant a right of use in accordance with its custom, not possession under the Indian Act, and thus the refusal to issue a certificate was correct.

The applicant, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo who entered Canada as a child, pleaded guilty to breaking and entering and was found inadmissible for serious criminality, resulting in a removal order.

The Immigration Appeal Division dismissed his appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, finding a high risk of re-offending and citing his repeated tendency to minimize his involvement and blame others.

On judicial review, the Federal Court held that the IAD's credibility findings were reasonable, it did not err by relying on police report statements over his testimony, and it reasonably weighed his lengthy criminal record against any prospect of rehabilitation.

The applicant, an Italian citizen, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division declaring him inadmissible to Canada on grounds of serious criminality under s. 36(1)(b) of the IRPA, following a guilty plea to a drug-related offence in the United States resulting in a 10-year prison sentence.

The applicant argued the ID failed to perform a detailed comparison of the essential elements of the American and Canadian offences and that the section 44 report was inadequate.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, noting the arguments were inadmissible as they were not raised before the ID and were otherwise without merit.

The applicant, a former member of the Nigerian Police Force, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division finding him inadmissible to Canada under section 35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for reasonable grounds to believe he engaged in crimes against humanity.

The Immigration Division applied the Ezokola test and found that the applicant made a knowing and significant contribution to the crimes committed by the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS).

The Federal Court found the decision-maker reasonably assessed the relevant factors and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicants, citizens of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissing their claim for refugee protection.

The RAD found they had an internal flight alternative (IFA) in Nigeria and faced no prospective risk.

The applicants argued the RAD unreasonably relied on a revoked jurisprudential guide, lacked transparency, and erred in its factual findings regarding the risk.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding the RAD's decision reasonably based on the applicants' individual circumstances and the conclusion that they were no longer exposed to any risk.

The applicant, a member of the Acho Dene Koe First Nation, sought judicial review of the band council's decision to postpone its election and extend its term of office, and challenged the validity of section 4 of the federal First Nations Election Cancellation and Postponement Regulations (Prevention of Diseases).

The Federal Court held that the band council did not have the customary power to extend its own term.

The Court further declared that section 4 of the Regulations was ultra vires the regulation-making power in section 73(1)(f) of the Indian Act, finding that the power to regulate disease prevention on reserves did not extend to regulating the basic parameters of democratic governance such as the length of elected officials' terms.

The declaration of invalidity was suspended for 60 days.

The applicant sought a stay of his removal to Jordan, arguing he would face risk due to his sexual orientation and conversion to Christianity.

His earlier Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) was refused, and leave for judicial review of that decision was denied.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the applicant failed to prove he would suffer irreparable harm upon removal.

The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to be added to the ballot for the upcoming election for chief of the respondent First Nation after the returning officer declared him ineligible due to an outstanding debt.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion for interim relief.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Court found that while the applicant raised serious issues regarding the validity of the debt and the election code, he did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of prevailing based on the incomplete evidentiary record.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to show irreparable harm because adequate alternative remedies were available, including appealing the election results through the First Nation's internal appeal process or challenging them directly in Court after the election.

The applicant, a councillor of the Piikani Nation facing a removal petition, brought an application for judicial review of the council's decision to refer the petition to the Removal Appeal Board.

The respondent brought a motion to stay the application on the basis that it was premature.

The Federal Court granted the motion to stay, finding that the administrative process had not yet been exhausted and there were no exceptional circumstances justifying an immediate intervention before the Board issued its final decision.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt of court against five band council members and their lawyer for failing to comply with a previous order imposing fines and costs for an earlier contempt.

Instead of paying the amounts to the Court Registry or the applicant as ordered, four of the council members and their lawyer set up a scheme to hold the funds in the lawyer's trust account pending an appeal and a stay application.

The Federal Court found four of the council members and the lawyer guilty of contempt of court, concluding they intentionally disobeyed the order and interfered with the administration of justice.

One council member was acquitted due to a genuine inability to pay.

The applicant was elected as a councillor of the Samson Cree Nation.

The Election Appeal Board invalidated his election because he performed work duties during the campaign, allegedly breaching a requirement to take leave without pay.

On judicial review, the Federal Court found the Board's decision unreasonable.

The Board found no corrupt practice but incorrectly characterized the breach as rendering the applicant ineligible.

The Court held the Board failed to consider whether the breach might have affected the election result, as required by the Nation's Election Law.

The decision was quashed and the applicant reinstated.

The applicants, two brothers from Pakistan, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing their refugee claim based on the availability of a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Hyderabad.

They alleged they were targeted by a Sunni extremist group and that the RAD erred in its IFA assessment and by failing to assess their sur place claim related to protests in Canada.

The Federal Court held that the RAD reasonably applied the two-prong IFA test and reasonably found that pursuing civilian targets across the country was not part of the extremist group's modus operandi.

The Court also found the RAD's rejection of the sur place claim reasonable, as there was no evidence the protests in Canada were monitored or would lead to harm in Pakistan.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.