Canada Case Law

Canada Employment Insurance Commission v RG

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Appeal Division allowed the Commission's appeal, finding the General Division erred as a matter of law: the benefit period could not be post‑dated to September 26, 2021, the s.153.17 credit applies only where the claimant's benefit period begins between September 27, 2020 and September 25, 2021, and the claimant lacks the 420 insurable hours required to establish a benefit period (he has 417 hours with the credit for a period starting September 19, 2021 and 143 hours without the credit for a period starting September 26, 2021).

Source excerpt

• Eligibility for benefits
• Qualifying hours
• Temporary legislative measures
• Interpretation of statutes
• Error of law

Read case analysis

SA v Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Although standard parental benefits cannot be paid beyond the statutory 52-week window, the claimant's selection of standard benefits was invalid because the Commission failed to provide critical information (the 52-week cutoff) necessary for an informed election; therefore the claimant may be paid extended parental benefits if he so chooses.

Source excerpt

• Parental benefits
• Election of benefits
• Benefit windows
• Interpretation of statutes
• Reconsideration

Read case analysis

Watto v. Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review, holding that s. 158 of the CNFPCA does not bar non-members from serving on an ICCRC discipline panel.

• Judicial review
• Standard of review
• Interpretation of statutes
• Disciplinary proceedings
• Not-for-profit corporations
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

Elguindy v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Appeal Division’s decision was reasonable: the applicant had no accrued or vested entitlement to Old Age Security prior to attaining age 65 so subsection 5(3) did not impermissibly deprive a vested right; Parliament intended the provision to apply to persons already incarcerated; no disqualifying bias was shown.

Source excerpt

• Retrospectivity
• Vested rights
• Bias/conflict of interest
• Interpretation of statutes
• Old age security entitlement

Read case analysis

TB5-10832

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

Section 110(2)(d) of the IRPA removes the right to appeal to the RAD for claimants who came directly or indirectly to Canada from a designated safe third country (the United States) where the claim is eligible under s.101(1)(e); exemptions under Article 4 of the Safe Third Country Agreement, s.101(1)(e) and Reg.159.4 that permit filing before the RPD do not extend to confer an appeal right to the RAD. Therefore the RAD lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Safe third country
• Safe third country agreement
• Appealability
• Jurisdiction
• Eligibility under irpa
• Port of entry exemptions

Read case analysis

Ouzkri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a citizenship refusal, holding the applicant did not prove the residence requirement on the evidence before the citizenship judge.

• Residence requirement
• Standard of review
• Burden of proof
• Centralized mode of existence test
• Interpretation of statutes
• Citizenship-residence-requirement

Read case analysis

Nova Scotia (Community Services) v. P.C.

Court

Nova Scotia Family Court

The Family Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the requested consent under the Change of Name Act because the Act contemplates a 'Judge of the County Court,' and following repeal of the County Court and reallocation of jurisdiction to the Supreme Court (Family Division) by statute, matters under the Change of Name Act fall within the Supreme Court, Family Division. Therefore the Family Court must dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Source excerpt

• Change of name
• Jurisdiction
• Consent dispensation
• Interpretation of statutes

Read case analysis

Schut v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

Judicial review of a Veterans Review and Appeal Board decision was dismissed. The Court held the Board reasonably weighed medical and factual evidence on ASD and applied the correct statutory approach.

• Burden of proof
• Natural justice
• Standard of review
• Credibility assessment
• Res judicata
• Interpretation of statutes

Read case analysis

Meyer v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

Subsection 67(3) must be read in light of the statutory definition of applicant in s.2(1) and the French text; it applies to estates and therefore para.67(3)(a) limits retroactivity to twelve months for estate applications.

Source excerpt

• Retroactivity
• Eligibility
• Interpretation of statutes
• Application by estates
• Limitation period
• Canada pension plan s.67(3)

Read case analysis

Mennes v. McClung

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The court held that sections 97 and 98 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, subsection 24(5) of the Interpretation Act and Directive CD081 authorized the delegation of powers to the Acting Assistant Commissioner, thereby validating the delegation and warranting dismissal of the appeal.

Source excerpt

• Delegation of powers
• Delegation of adjudicative functions
• Carltona principle
• Interpretation of statutes

Read case analysis