Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a RAD decision finding no Article 1F(a) exclusion, holding the voluntariness analysis under Ezokola was reasonable.
The Federal Court allowed judicial review, finding the Immigration Division failed to meaningfully address evidence of internal division within the Léopards during the 1989 coup attempt.
The Panel found the claimants credible, established nexus to Convention grounds (Palestinian ethnicity and perceived political opinion), demonstrated past persecution and a serious forward‑facing risk on return, and showed lack of effective state protection and no viable internal flight alternative; accordingly they meet the definition of Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court partly allowed judicial review of a refused PRRA, finding the officer failed to address a central conscientious-objection argument about Russia’s war in Ukraine.
Federal Court dismissed Canada’s citizenship-revocation action against Božo Jozepović, finding the Minister had not proven a section 35 IRPA fact or intentional material concealment.
The claimant, a Ukrainian national, credibly established a subjective fear supported by objective evidence of widespread, targeted violence by Russian forces, demonstrated that adequate state protection is unavailable and that no viable internal flight alternative exists; therefore she faces a serious possibility of persecution on the ground of nationality and is a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA.
Source excerpt
The claimant is not excluded under Article 1E because her residence in Ukraine does not afford effective surrogate protection given significant risks there; she was found credible, established nexus to political opinion (opposition to the Russian invasion) and a well-founded fear of persecution in Russia, and no state protection or viable internal flight alternative exists; therefore she qualifies as a Convention refugee.
Source excerpt
Claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA because (1) Syria is his country of reference and he cannot obtain durable Lebanese nationality; (2) his courtesy residency in Lebanon is not durable given evidence of forcible deportations, so Article 1E does not apply; (3) forced conscription in Syria breaches international standards and draft evasion is treated as political dissent, creating nexus to political opinion; (4) there is no effective state protection and no viable internal flight alternative; and (5) claimant's testimony was credible, so his fear of persecution is well founded.
Source excerpt
Member accepted claimant's credibility, found nexus to political opinion for both Russia and Ukraine, gave significant weight to the Russian military call-up and country condition reports showing repression of dissent and risks to perceived pro-Russian persons in Ukraine, found no effective state protection or viable internal flight alternative in either country and therefore concluded the claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution and is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA.
Source excerpt
The RPD erred by relying on implausibility findings to infer knowledge; on the record the Appellant's contribution was voluntary but neither knowing nor significant to the Public Guard's criminal purpose, therefore he is not excluded under s.98 IRPA/Article 1F(a) and is a Convention refugee.
Source excerpt
Explore more
