Canada Case Law

Qualizza v. Canada

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Federal Court judge applied the correct Hennelly test and did not commit a palpable and overriding error in finding the appellants failed to show intention to appeal, arguable merit, lack of prejudice, or a reasonable explanation for the 29-day delay; the appellants also relied on documents not before the judge and improperly attempted to tender new evidence on appeal without leave, and the affidavit of counsel was improperly relied upon as evidence; accordingly the extension of time was properly refused and the appeal dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Leave to appeal
• Judicial deference and standard of review
• Misfeasance in public office
• Charter challenges
• Grievance process under national defence act

Read case analysis

Khodykin v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Appeal Division reasonably concluded the applicant's deliberate refusal to answer vaccination questions led to suspension constituting misconduct under s.31 of the Employment Insurance Act; the Tribunal lacked authority to entertain the constitutional invalidation of the employer's vaccination policy and wrongful dismissal issues are irrelevant to the EI misconduct inquiry, therefore the judicial review application fails under a reasonableness standard.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Employment insurance benefits
• Covid-19 vaccination policy
• Charter challenges
• Collective bargaining
• Wrongful dismissal

Read case analysis

Rodriguez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

Judicial review of a refugee matter was dismissed. The Court upheld the RPD’s forward-looking risk analysis, the RAD’s lack of jurisdiction, and rejected the Charter challenge.

• Safe third country agreement
• Refugee protection
• Judicial review
• Charter challenges
• Jurisdiction
• Unaccompanied minor

Read case analysis

HN v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal was refused because the appeal had no reasonable chance of success; the General Division correctly applied binding authority that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the legality or Charter validity of employer vaccination policies and properly limited its inquiry to whether the claimant intentionally failed to comply with employment obligations, thereby establishing misconduct.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Vaccination policy
• Jurisdiction
• Charter challenges
• Leave to appeal

Read case analysis

IH v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The General Division correctly found on the balance of probabilities that the claimant wilfully and deliberately refused to comply with the employer’s vaccination policy, that this conduct was the direct cause of her suspension and constituted misconduct under the EI Act; there is no arguable reviewable error and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to resolve Charter or accommodation claims in this EI misconduct determination, so permission to appeal is refused.

Source excerpt

• Employment insurance
• Misconduct
• Vaccination policy
• Leave to appeal
• Charter challenges
• Duty to accommodate

Read case analysis

Adelberg v. Canada

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court struck a large COVID-19 policy claim: no leave for plaintiffs covered by s. 236 FPSLRA, and leave to amend for the rest.

• Federal public sector labour relations act s236
• Grievance procedure
• Pleadings and particulars
• Charter challenges
• Covid-19 vaccination policy
• Federal-public-sector-labour-relations-act

Read case analysis

MW v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Although the General Division erred by not meaningfully analyzing the employer's March 3, 2022 recharacterization of the leave, the undisputed evidence shows the claimant consciously and deliberately refused to comply with the employer's vaccination policy, knew an unpaid suspension was the consequence, and therefore the suspension was caused by his misconduct; the employer's later removal of disciplinary consequences reflected changed circumstances and did not negate that the suspension arose from misconduct, so the Appeal Division upholds the disentitlement.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Disentitlement
• Procedural fairness
• New evidence
• Charter challenges
• Suspension

Read case analysis

Ben Naoum v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court struck multiple judicial review applications as moot after the air and rail COVID-19 vaccine mandate orders were repealed.

• Vaccine mandates
• Mootness
• Judicial review
• Declaratory relief
• Interim orders
• Ministerial orders

Read case analysis

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC v. Mivasair

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed stay applications in criminal contempt proceedings, holding the accused had not shown the “clearest of cases” of abuse of process and the trials would proceed.

• Abuse of process
• Stay of proceedings
• Criminal contempt
• Jurisdiction over indigenous accused
• Disclosure obligations
• Charter challenges

Read case analysis

N. v. F.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused the motion to admit fresh evidence: the trial judge’s factual findings and application of the CLRA were open to him and owed deference; the appellant failed to establish s.22 or s.23 jurisdiction or serious harm; the s.40 return order was lawful and s.40(3) is within Ontario’s legislative competence; the Charter challenges to s.40(3) failed on the facts and law.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction
• Habitual residence
• Wrongful retention
• Best interests of the child
• Parens patriae jurisdiction
• Fresh evidence on appeal

Read case analysis