Sébastien Grammond

The applicants, a family of Christian farmers from Nigeria, sought judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division's dismissal of their refugee claim.

The claim was based on alleged attacks by Fulani herdsmen.

The RAD dismissed the appeal on credibility grounds, noting multiple contradictions and omissions in the principal applicant's testimony, as well as irregular supporting documents.

The Federal Court held the RAD's credibility findings were reasonable, as they were based on major contradictions and omissions.

The Court also dismissed allegations of bias and Charter violations as unsupported.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the dismissal of their refugee protection claim.

The claim was dismissed due to the availability of an internal flight alternative in Nigeria.

The Federal Court found the decision reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicants, nationals of the Democratic Republic of Congo who previously lived in South Africa, applied for judicial review of the RAD's dismissal of their refugee claim.

The RPD and RAD found the principal applicant's credibility severely undermined and concluded they could safely return to the DRC.

The Court dismissed the application, finding no error in the RAD's forward-looking risk assessment or its application of the "compelling reasons" provision.

The Court declined to certify a question regarding the impact of prior refugee status in a third country due to lack of general importance and evidentiary foundation.

The applicants sought an ex parte interim injunction to stop the elections for the council of the Fond du Lac Denesuline First Nation.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding that the matter was no longer urgent and that the applicants had not exhausted the alternative remedy provided by the First Nation's Election Act, which established an Appeal Board to hear election grievances.

The applicant, a citizen of Sudan, sought judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division's (RAD) dismissal of his refugee protection claim.

The RAD upheld the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the applicant was not credible due to significant contradictions regarding his detention in Sudan, omissions in his prior US refugee claim, and his voluntary return to Sudan in 2013, which undermined his subjective fear.

The applicant was self-represented and the matter was heard on written submissions.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings and assessment of new evidence regarding sur place activities to be reasonable and dismissed the application.

In a proposed class action regarding the Canada Child Benefit for children subject to youth protection orders, the defendant sought leave under article 574(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure to file evidence at the authorization stage.

The Federal Court granted the motion in part, allowing an affidavit from a CRA employee regarding benefit applications but refusing the filing of Quebec Court youth protection judgments, as the latter pertained to the merits rather than the authorization criteria.

In a patent infringement action between hockey equipment manufacturers, the parties brought cross-motions to exclude various expert reports.

The Court dismissed the defendant's motion to exclude a report under Rule 248, finding the expert relied on disclosed documents.

The Court granted the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's expert reply report on reasonable royalty as improper reply.

The Court exercised its discretion to admit another expert reply report on accounting for profits.

The plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the defendant's responding and reply reports was dismissed.

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.

The applicant, a citizen of Côte d'Ivoire, sought a stay of his removal from Canada.

His refugee claim and subsequent appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division were dismissed due to lack of credibility.

The applicant applied for leave and judicial review of the RAD decision out of time, thereby losing the automatic stay of removal.

A CBSA officer declined to defer his removal, noting the late filing and lack of new risks.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion for a stay of removal, finding no irreparable harm and that the CBSA officer's decision not to defer was reasonable.

The applicant sought a stay of his scheduled removal to Uganda, arguing that his presence was required to assist his wife in recovering from upcoming surgery.

The CBSA officer had previously denied an administrative deferral request on this basis, noting the presence of adult children who could assist.

The Federal Court denied the motion for a stay, finding that the applicant failed to show that the CBSA officer's decision refusing the deferral was unreasonable.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for patent infringement regarding its auto-injector patent.

The defendant counterclaimed for a declaration of invalidity.

The Federal Court found that the asserted claims were invalid for overbreadth, as they failed to include essential elements of the invention.

Certain claims were also found to be anticipated by prior art or obvious.

Furthermore, the Court concluded that even if the claims were valid, the defendant's device did not infringe them.

The action was dismissed, and the counterclaim for invalidity was allowed.