Canada Case Law

The Estate of KB v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The extension of time was refused because the application for leave to appeal was filed beyond the 90‑day limit without a reasonable explanation for the delay; further, even if filed timely the submissions did not demonstrate an arguable case of legal, factual or procedural error by the General Division that would justify leave.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Leave to appeal
• Incapacity
• Retroactive benefits
• Procedural fairness
• Evidentiary weight

Read case analysis

Bagdatli Parlakyigit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed an immigration judicial review after finding the applicant failed to respond to IRCC’s request for proof of presence in Canada under a settlement.

• Temporary public policy for nationals of türkiye and syria (tpp)
• Procedural fairness
• Legitimate expectations
• Standard of review (reasonableness)
• Settlement implementation
• Work permit eligibility

Read case analysis

Ontario (Natural Resources and Forestry) v. Town of

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court dismissed the appeal: s.10(1) of the Endangered Species Act must be given a remedial, species‑focused interpretation so that 'damage' includes acts that make habitat less attractive, useful or valuable to the species; the trial judge's factual findings that the Town's mechanical raking and bulldozing materially altered and degraded Piping Plover habitat were supported by expert evidence and entitled to deference; the MNR biologist's opinion evidence was properly admitted under White Burgess given she attested to her duty to the court and her involvement did not meet the high thresho…

Source excerpt

• Endangered species act s.10(1) habitat protection
• Interpretation of statutory term 'damage'
• Admissibility of expert evidence (white burgess)
• Employee-experts and impartiality
• Deference to trial findings
• De minimis defence

Read case analysis

TC0-07749

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is dismissed because the interpreter difficulty did not constitute a real and significant breach of procedural fairness, Exhibit A (11 photos) is admissible but not central or probative enough to alter credibility findings, Exhibit B (medical certificate) is inadmissible as it pre-dated the RPD decision and was reasonably available, and the RPD's adverse credibility and sufficiency findings are supported by the record (lack of corroboration, poor quality and inconsistency of testimony) such that the RPD decision denying refugee protection is confirmed.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Interpreter and linguistic understanding
• Admissibility of new evidence (s.110(4) irpa)
• Requirement for hearing on new evidence (s.110(6) irpa)
• Standard of review
• Objective evidence of persecution

Read case analysis

MC0-04681

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is dismissed because the Panel found, on correctness review, that the Appellant has available IFAs in Abuja and Port Harcourt and that the majority of the purported new evidence was not new or lacked credibility under s.110(4) IRPA and Raza/Singh criteria; therefore the RPD's conclusion that the Appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection is confirmed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Source excerpt

• Internal flight alternative
• New evidence (s.110 irpa)
• Credibility
• Rule 29 late documents
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

MC0-04796

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD affirmed the RPD: the appellant failed to establish conversion to Christianity or sincere religious practice because of material contradictions on dates, vagueness and lack of basic religious knowledge, insufficient corroboration, and inadmissibility of late evidence under s.110(4) IRPA; accordingly there is no well‑founded fear or risk under s.97 and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Religious conversion
• Apostasy risk
• Admissibility of new evidence (s.110(4) irpa)
• Oral hearing (s.110(6) irpa)
• Delay in claiming refugee protection

Read case analysis

VB9-09573

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is dismissed because the determinative factors—an unexplained and significant delay in claiming refugee protection and the failure to provide corroborative evidence that was reasonably available—fatally undermined the Appellant's credibility such that she failed to establish her claims on a balance of probabilities, and the proposed new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA.

Source excerpt

• New evidence admissibility
• Credibility assessment
• Corroboration
• Delay in claiming
• Sexual orientation (sogie) guidelines
• Oral hearing

Read case analysis

TB9-28074

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD admitted the appellant's new documentary evidence as meeting s.110(4) IRPA and the Singh/Raza criteria, concluded the five impugned documents are authentic, set aside the RPD's adverse credibility finding that was founded on those documents, found the appellant credible on his central allegations, found inadequate state protection and no viable IFA, and substituted the RPD decision by determining the appellant is a Convention refugee.

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee
• Credibility assessment
• Fraudulent documents
• Admissibility of new evidence (singh/raza)
• Internal flight alternative
• State protection

Read case analysis

MC0-06706

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RPD reasonably concluded the appellants' claim lacked credibility because of pervasive inconsistencies and indications of fraudulent or unauthenticated documentary evidence; therefore the appellants failed on the balance of probabilities to establish a well‑founded fear of persecution and are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Document authenticity
• Burden of proof
• Convention refugee determination
• Protection claim

Read case analysis

TB8-08226

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

After independent review the RAD found the RPD did not err: adverse credibility inferences were justified by inconsistencies and omissions; new evidence was either irrelevant, not newly available, or lacked probative value; the evidence did not establish that alleged agents of harm had motive and capacity to find the appellant in Erbil; therefore a viable internal flight alternative existed and the RPD's refusal of protection was correct.

Source excerpt

• Internal flight alternative
• Credibility assessment
• Admission of new evidence (s.110(4) irpa)
• Procedural fairness
• Risk of persecution
• Asayish/police interplay

Read case analysis