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
1 court collection
Last checked

Canada decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Immigration law TC0-08620

TC0-08620

The admitted new evidence (attack on the appellant's father, medical records, FIR and a fatwa naming the appellant) demonstrated that Lashkar-e-Jhangvi has both the motivation and the means (networks and dissemination mechanisms) to locate the appellant nationwide and that state protection is ineffective; therefore there is no viable internal flight alternative and the appellant meets the Convention refugee definition; appeal allowed and decision substituted.

  • Internal flight alternative
  • State protection
  • Convention refugee status
  • New evidence admission
  • Credibility assessment
  • Oral hearing test
Read case analysis
Immigration law TB9-11461

TB9-11461

Appeal dismissed because the RPD was correct to find appellant not credible due to failure to seek protection in the USA and prolonged periods out of status, the Government travel advisory did not meet s.110(4) to be admitted, no jurisdiction for an oral hearing, and Port Harcourt constitutes a viable, safe and reasonable internal flight alternative; therefore appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.

  • Credibility assessment
  • Internal flight alternative
  • Admissibility of new evidence
  • Oral hearing test
  • Convention refugee status
  • Protection claim
Read case analysis
Immigration TB9-18860

TB9-18860

The RAD affirmed the RPD because the IFAs of Lahore, Islamabad and Multan were found to be both safe (no serious possibility of persecution or risk of torture and no evidence persecutors could locate claimant there) and reasonable (relocation would not cause undue hardship), the new evidence was admissible but did not justify an oral hearing, and no procedural unfairness requiring referral was established.

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Procedural fairness
  • Admissibility of evidence
  • Oral hearing test
  • Nexus
  • Generalized risk
Read case analysis
Immigration law TB9-03505

TB9-03505

The RAD confirmed the RPD: appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because a viable, safe and reasonable IFA exists in Port Harcourt; new evidence was largely either not admissible under s.110(4) or failed credibility/newness/relevance tests; an oral hearing was not justified because IFA was determinative.

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Admissibility of new evidence (s.110(4))
  • Singh/raza factors
  • Oral hearing test
  • Gender-based persecution
  • Female genital mutilation
Read case analysis
Immigration MC0-09767

MC0-09767

The RAD concluded that the appellants failed to establish that Islamabad or Lahore are unsafe or unreasonably harsh IFAs, that the admitted post‑RPD COVID‑19 media evidence did not render the IFAs inaccessible or raise a serious issue requiring an oral hearing, and therefore the RPD's determination that the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection is confirmed (s.111(1)(a) IRPA).

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Credibility
  • Admission of new evidence
  • Oral hearing test
  • Convention refugee determination
  • Covid-19 and relocation
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.