Esheria Canada Case Law
Sign in
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Canada Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Canada case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Canada decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Immigration law MC0-10732

MC0-10732

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RPD erred by failing to analyze objective documentary evidence and by speculatively concluding the JNG cartel would have no interest in locating the appellants; documentary evidence establishes the JNG's widespread presence and capacity to learn of the appellants' location in Campeche or Cancun and, coupled with the serious recruitment threat, means appellants would face a real risk there; state protection is unavailable because of cartel links to police; therefore the appellants are persons in need of protection and the RAD substitutes that determination.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative (ifa)
  • State protection availability
  • Assessment of credibility
  • Organized crime threat assessment
  • Documentary evidence analysis
Read case analysis
Immigration and refugee law VC0-03790

VC0-03790

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD dismissed the appeal because the appellants did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the agents of harm (linked to Los Zetas) have the resolve and means to locate and harm them in Merida and it is not unreasonable for them to seek refuge in Merida; accordingly the RPD's finding that a viable IFA existed was correct and the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Convention refugee determination
  • Risk and safety assessment
  • Documentary evidence evaluation
  • Los zetas cartel
Read case analysis
Refugee protection MA9-04522

MA9-04522

Court
Refugee Protection Division

The panel rejected the claimants' refugee protection claim because the female claimant's testimony was found not credible—marked by implausibilities, inconsistencies and a failure to produce key corroborating documentation (the complaint) or to report threats to her employer—so the claimants failed to meet their burden to show a real risk of persecution or serious harm under ss.96 or 97 IRPA.

Source excerpt

  • Credibility
  • Corroboration and documentary production
  • Convention refugee
  • Person in need of protection
  • Threats from criminal organizations
  • Burden of proof
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Canada decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.