Stéphanie Valois

The appellant corporation appealed a reassessment that added a $31,500,000 capital gain to its income for the 2005 taxation year under the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR).

The appellant had engaged in a series of transactions, including the circular payment of capital dividends and cross-redemption of shares, to avoid the application of subsection 55(2) of the Income Tax Act and reduce the capital gain realized on the sale of its indirect interest in a pharmaceutical company.

The Tax Court of Canada found that while the transactions complied with the literal wording of the capital dividend account provisions, they frustrated the object, spirit, and purpose of subsection 55(2), which is intended to prevent the conversion of taxable capital gains into tax-free intercorporate dividends.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the RPD's finding that he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

The applicant alleged fear of persecution from Fulani herdsmen and the Nigerian government related to a poultry farm he previously operated.

The RAD upheld the RPD's finding that there was no forward-looking risk because the applicant no longer operated the farm and had not shown the profile of a political dissident.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the RAD did not raise a new issue but merely responded to the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant based on the existing evidentiary record.

There was no breach of procedural fairness.

The applicants, citizens of Angola, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision rejecting their claim for refugee protection.

The RAD confirmed the Refugee Protection Division's finding that the principal applicant's testimony regarding her disclosure of a fraudulent contract and subsequent persecution lacked credibility due to significant inconsistencies and omissions.

The Federal Court found the RAD's analysis to be justified, transparent, and intelligible, concluding that the credibility findings were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a citizen of Colombia, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision dismissing her appeal and finding her not to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection based on her sexual orientation.

The RAD found that she had not rebutted the presumption of state protection.

The Federal Court held that the RAD reasonably considered the applicant's profile and the objective documentary evidence regarding Colombia's legislative improvements for LGBT individuals.

The Court concluded the RAD's finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate state protection was unavailable, having contacted the police only once, was reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the refusal of his refugee claim based on an adverse credibility finding.

The RPD and RAD found the applicant lacked credibility due to numerous omissions, contradictions, and discrepancies between his port of entry declarations, basis of claim narrative, and testimony regarding his political activities in Chad and a prior asylum claim in France.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility assessment was reasonable and dismissed the application for judicial review.

The applicant, a former Nigerian police officer, sought judicial review of an Immigration Division decision finding him inadmissible to Canada under paragraph 35(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for complicity in crimes against humanity.

The Federal Court found the decision reasonable, noting that the documentary evidence of widespread human rights abuses by the Nigeria Police Force was overwhelming and that the applicant's service in a specialized anti-riot unit supported a finding of knowing and significant contribution.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision refusing his pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA).

Prior to the PRRA hearing, the applicant's counsel was temporarily disbarred.

At the hearing, the applicant was represented by an unauthorized office staff member who failed to disclose the disbarment.

The officer subsequently discovered the issue but sent a notice to an incorrect email address, depriving the applicant of the opportunity to secure a new representative.

The Federal Court allowed the application, finding a breach of procedural fairness due to fundamentally incompetent representation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a RAD decision upholding the rejection of his refugee claim.

He alleged a fear of reprisals in Pakistan for acts committed by his parents 50 years prior.

The RAD found no serious possibility of persecution given the lack of recent threats and the applicant's failure to establish he was being sought by authorities.

The Federal Court concluded the RAD's decision was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant, an 88-year-old citizen of Algeria, sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming the rejection of her refugee claim.

The applicant alleged fear of persecution due to threats from her former assistant's sister after discovering theft, and lack of adequate care for the elderly in Algeria.

The RAD upheld the RPD's negative credibility findings and determination that the documentary evidence did not support a real possibility of persecution based on age and medical condition.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility assessment and treatment of documentary evidence to be reasonable and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the rejection of her refugee claim based on credibility.

The applicant argued the RAD misinterpreted evidence and breached procedural fairness by relying on her delay in leaving Djibouti without notice.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings reasonable and held there was no breach of procedural fairness as the findings were based on evidence known to the applicant and credibility was already in issue.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicants, citizens of Haiti and Brazil, sought judicial review of a RAD decision confirming the RPD's rejection of their refugee protection claim.

The RAD found they had not established a lack of state protection in Brazil or that the discrimination they faced amounted to persecution.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting the applicants had not sought police assistance and failed to provide convincing evidence rebutting the presumption of state protection.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) confirming that she was not a person in need of protection.

The RAD found her allegations regarding kidnapping and threats from her deceased husband's family lacked credibility due to vague testimony, inconsistencies, and a lack of authentic corroborating evidence.

The Federal Court held the RAD's decision was reasonable, noting the applicant failed to provide adequate evidence such as police reports or proof of missing children, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a Haitian citizen with permanent resident status in Brazil, applied for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming the rejection of his refugee claim under Article 1E of the Convention.

He argued the RAD unreasonably assessed the risk of persecution for Haitians in Brazil.

The Federal Court found the RAD reasonably concluded that the discrimination the applicant alleged did not amount to persecution, as it did not constitute a serious, systematic, and repeated violation of core human rights.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant, a Sikh citizen of India from Punjab and member of the Indian National Congress, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the rejection of his refugee claim.

The RAD concluded that the applicant had a viable internal flight alternative (IFA) in Bangalore or Mumbai.

The Federal Court applied the reasonableness standard under Vavilov and upheld the RAD's decision.

The Court found the RAD reasonably concluded, based on objective evidence, that the applicant was not at serious risk of persecution in the IFAs and that it would not be unreasonable for him to relocate there.

The applicant, who had overstayed his visitor status, was arrested and issued a removal order.

He sought judicial review, arguing that CBSA officers breached procedural fairness by failing to adequately assess his ability to appreciate the nature of the proceedings under paragraph 228(4)(b) of the IRPR, and that his section 10(b) Charter right to counsel was violated.

The Federal Court found no evidence that the applicant was unable to understand the proceedings during his interviews.

The Court also concluded, based on the officers' evidence, that the applicant had been informed of his right to counsel and offered the opportunity to contact a lawyer, which he declined.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Division finding him inadmissible to Canada under paragraphs 34(1)(b) and 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act due to his involvement with the Union des forces pour la démocratie et le développement (UFDD).

The Federal Court found that the Immigration Division reasonably assessed the applicant's participation and membership in the organization based on the evidence presented, applying the framework established in B074.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.