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 set aside an Immigration Division inadmissibility decision, holding it unreasonably failed to consider non-refoulement when interpreting IRPA ss. 34(1)(b) and (f).
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an RPD decision excluding the applicant from refugee protection for serious non-political crime under Article 1F(b) and IRPA s. 98.
Child was habitually resident in Hong Kong from birth until removal on December 25, 2025; Mr. Chau was exercising custody rights at removal; the removal was therefore wrongful under Articles 3 and 12 of the Hague Convention; Ms. Tsang failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that return would expose Jay to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm under Article 13(b) or would offend fundamental principles under Article 20; accordingly, pursuant to Article 12 the court ordered Jay's immediate return to Hong Kong and set aside the BC protection and non-removal orders; a police enfor…
Source excerpt
Court of Appeal upheld a permanent stay of two related actions against Barrick Gold, finding Tanzania was the clearly more appropriate forum and rejecting fresh evidence.
Article 13(b) was correctly interpreted to include, as an independent category subject to the Convention's high threshold, an "otherwise intolerable situation"; the chambers judge reasonably found that returning the child to Mexico would place the child in an otherwise intolerable situation because the primary caregiver would face no housing, no means of financial support and no prospect of earning sufficient income, and the appellant could not be relied upon to provide support; the appellant's ineffective assistance and fresh evidence claims fail because he did not produce former counsel com…
Source excerpt
The child was habitually resident in Lewisville, Texas immediately prior to May 17, 2024, but the applicant filed the Hague application after one year and, on balance of probabilities, knew the child's location since July 13, 2024; the child is well settled in Nova Scotia and the applicant is no longer resident in the US, creating a grave risk that return would place the child in an intolerable situation under Article 13(b); accordingly the court declines to order return and dismisses the application.
Source excerpt
The Crown's proposed expert evidence from Dr. Coyne was inadmissible because it was not logically relevant to any fact in issue in the indictment—general evidence about Fox Hunt/Sky Net, untethered to the accused's specific conduct or the specific target, did not tend to prove the elements the Crown must establish; alternatively, any marginal probative value would be overborne by prejudicial effect and risk of distracting the jury.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review, finding the RAD reasonably applied Article 1E and section 98 to exclude the applicant from refugee protection based on his status in Ukraine.
The court fixed the date of alleged wrongful retention as November 5, 2025; applying the Balev/Ludwig hybrid approach and Article 31's territorial‑unit focus, the court found the focal point of the children's lives immediately before that date was Nanaimo, British Columbia, and therefore there was no wrongful retention under the Hague Convention; alternatively, even if the children were habitually resident in the United States, the petitioner had acquiesced to their remaining in British Columbia and return would be refused under Article 13.
Source excerpt
The child was habitually resident in Bogota, Colombia immediately prior to removal; the father did not consent to the September 26, 2024 removal and the April 3, 2024 deed did not authorize unilateral relocation to Canada; the mother failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that return would expose the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or place her in an intolerable situation under Article 13(b); therefore the Hague Convention return order is granted with specified undertakings to mitigate transitional risk.
Source excerpt
Explore more
