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
Federal Court granted judicial review of a TRV refusal, finding the officer’s reasons were unreasonable for failing to engage with the applicants’ evidence of ties to India.
The appeal is allowed because the General Division denied the claimant procedural fairness by restricting her ability to present and test evidence (notably preventing questioning of FW) and failed to consider a statutory relevant circumstance—antagonism with a supervisor—so the decision did not consider all circumstances required by the EI Act and must be remitted for reconsideration.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court held that the visa officer reasonably refused the Quebec Investor Class application for lack of intent to reside in Quebec and found no bias or procedural unfairness.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a study permit refusal, finding the visa officer’s reasons reasonable and rejecting allegations of bias.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a taxpayer-relief refusal, finding the Delegate’s decision reasonable and no reasonable apprehension of bias.
The appeal is dismissed because the appellants failed to establish credible, corroborated evidence linking alleged threats or recruitment by the Sinaloa Cartel to a Convention ground; their evidence contained significant inconsistencies and lacked probative value, so on the balance of probabilities they did not establish a serious possibility of persecution or a risk of harm under s.97 IRPA.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because, on independent review of the record, the Refugee Protection Division reasonably found the appellants' core allegations not credible and there was insufficient probative corroborative evidence to establish the existence, profile and capacity of the alleged agents of persecution or to meet the tests under sections 96 or 97 IRPA; procedural fairness and guideline obligations were satisfied and no bias was demonstrated.
Source excerpt
The RPD prejudged mid-hearing that the OPT was not a CFHR without affording the appellant the opportunity for counsel to question him or to make submissions on that issue, producing a reasonable apprehension of bias and a breach of audi alteram partem; because the Court cannot say beyond doubt that the prejudgment had no material effect on the decision, the appropriate remedy is to allow the appeal and remit the claim to a differently constituted RPD panel under s.111(1)(c) IRPA.
Source excerpt
The RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified by material contradictions and omissions in the appellant's testimony and written narrative, the proffered new evidence was not admissible because it predated the RPD decision and was reasonably available earlier, medical evidence did not explain contradictions, and there is no credible basis to conclude the appellant faces persecution or serious harm if he returns to Tbilisi; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the RPD decision confirmed.
Source excerpt
The RAD concluded the RPD erred in its credibility assessment by overemphasizing peripheral omissions and contradictions, mischaracterizing evidence about partners, failing to apply the SOGIE Guideline and to account for barriers to corroboration and psychological effects, and by conducting the hearing in a manner that gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias; substituting its own factual finding that the Appellant is, on a balance of probabilities, a gay man at risk of persecution in Ghana without adequate state protection, the RAD allowed the appeal and found the Appellant to be a Con…
Source excerpt
Explore more
