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 VC1-03906

VC1-03906

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

Appeal dismissed because, on an independent assessment, the proposed IFA (XXXX) is both safe and reasonable on a balance of probabilities: the appellant failed to rebut the IFA due to inconsistent and uncorroborated evidence and did not establish that the alleged persecutor had the means or motivation to locate or harm him in the IFA or that state protection would be unavailable.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative (ifa)
  • Credibility and corroboration
  • State protection
  • Burden of proof
  • Reasonableness test
Read case analysis
Immigration MC0-01699

MC0-01699

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

Because the claimant held Italian permanent resident status conferring substantially the same rights as nationals and the appellants failed to rebut the presumption that Italy would provide adequate state protection — shown by ongoing criminal prosecution and functioning institutions — the RPD correctly excluded the claimant under Article 1E and s.98 IRPA and the appellants are not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection.

Source excerpt

  • Article 1e
  • S.98 irpa
  • State protection presumption
  • Internal flight alternative
  • Asylum claim
Read case analysis
Immigration TC0-03200

TC0-03200

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

On independent review the Tribunal found the Appellants credible and that, on a balance of probabilities, XXXX and his associates were responsible for the threatening calls; given XXXX's Sinaloa Cartel connections, demonstrated ability to locate the Appellant and continued motivation, Mexico City is not a safe or reasonable internal flight alternative and effective state protection is lacking, therefore the Appellants qualify as Convention refugees and the appeal is allowed by substitution.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Convention refugee determination
  • Credibility assessment
  • Persecution nexus
  • State protection adequacy
Read case analysis
Immigration MB9-16586

MB9-16586

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The appellants failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that they would not have access to adequate state protection in Belgium; therefore the RPD's conclusion that state protection was available is correct and the appeals are dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • State protection
  • Domestic violence
  • Burden of proof
  • Standard of review
Read case analysis
Immigration TB8-03062

TB8-03062

Court
Refugee Protection Division

On the balance of probabilities the claimants failed to demonstrate that State protection in Colombia was unavailable or inadequate with respect to their circumstances and that no reasonable internal flight alternative existed; consequently they do not qualify as Convention refugees under s.96 nor as persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Source excerpt

  • Credibility
  • State protection
  • Internal flight alternative
  • Convention refugee
  • Person in need of protection
  • Safe third country
Read case analysis
Immigration MB7-08247

MB7-08247

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

On the balance of probabilities the appellant's evidence lacked credibility due to inadequate corroboration and unreliable medical evidence, and he failed to demonstrate state unwillingness or inability to protect him; accordingly he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed pursuant to s.111(1)(a) IRPA.

Source excerpt

  • Convention refugee determination
  • Person in need of protection
  • Corroboration
  • Medical evidence
  • Political opinion
  • Persecution
Read case analysis
Immigration TB7-07597

TB7-07597

Court
Refugee Protection Division

The claimants received state protection (denunciations were taken, Protection Measure documents issued, police surveillance and escort provided); they failed to rebut the presumption of state protection and therefore did not establish a serious possibility of persecution on a Convention ground nor risk of cruel and unusual treatment or torture if returned.

Source excerpt

  • Convention refugee status
  • Persons in need of protection
  • State protection
  • Protection measures
  • Credibility
Read case analysis
Immigration VB3-01995

VB3-01995

Court
Refugee Protection Division

Claim denied because the claimant failed to prove lack of effective state protection or a Convention-ground nexus; country evidence shows substantial reforms and measures making state protection available and the claimant did not seek or test protection, so removal would not expose him to persecution, torture, or cruel and unusual treatment.

Source excerpt

  • Convention refugee determination
  • State protection/availability
  • Risk of torture/cruel treatment
  • Credibility assessment
  • Country condition evidence
  • Burden to seek state protection
Read case analysis
Immigration and refugee protection act MB3-01301

MB3-01301

Court
Refugee Protection Division

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Colombia can provide state protection because documentary and testimonial evidence showed authorities investigated threats and took steps to offer protection and the claimant left soon after filing complaints, so the claim for refugee protection was denied.

Source excerpt

  • Well-founded fear of persecution
  • State protection availability
  • Need for protection under s.97 irpa
  • Evidence and credibility
Read case analysis
Immigration and refugee law TB2-09439

TB2-09439

Court
Refugee Protection Division

The claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence because Colombia is a functioning democracy with adequate state protection measures, the claimants did not seek police protection or other available state remedies without a compelling justification, and therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under sections 96 and 97(1) of the IRPA.

Source excerpt

  • State protection
  • Well-founded fear of persecution
  • Convention refugee determination
  • Persons in need of protection
  • Extortion by non-state actors
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.