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 upheld the RAD’s refusal of refugee protection, finding the decision reasonable on credibility, corroboration, and forward-looking risk.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision, finding Mérida, Mexico a viable internal flight alternative and no reviewable error.
Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an RPD refugee decision, finding the credibility analysis reasonable, no procedural unfairness, and a manifestly unfounded finding justified.
The Federal Court found a procedural fairness breach where the RAD relied on an incomplete transcript and failed to review audio of the RPD hearing.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a negative PRRA decision, finding no procedural unfairness from the lack of a recording or interpreter and holding the merits analysis reasonable.
Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision, finding the RAD conducted an independent, reasonable credibility analysis and properly addressed SOGIE and supporting evidence.
Although the RAD found the RPD erred by not applying the Gender Guideline, that error was not determinative because the RPD's central findings—that the PA's testimony contained unexplained inconsistencies, that evidence about M's means and motivation to locate the appellants was speculative, and that viable, not unduly harsh IFAs existed in Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru—are supported on a balance of probabilities; therefore the appellants fail to discharge the burden to show no viable IFA and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a RAD decision refusing new evidence and upholding adverse credibility findings in a Pakistani refugee claim.
The court held the parties were in a romantic but not marriage-like relationship under the Family Law Act, and found a $100,000 advance was a loan repayable by the claimant.
The RAD upheld the RPD's adverse credibility findings because the appellant's testimony and documentary evidence contained pervasive material inconsistencies about her same‑sex relationship, threats, who knew of her orientation and interactions with authorities; the post‑decision evidence failed IRPA s.110(4) requirements and was rejected; the psychotherapist's report did not explain the core inconsistencies; consequently the appellant did not prove she is bisexual, threatened or at risk in Kenya and the appeal is dismissed under IRPA s.111(1)(a).
Source excerpt
Explore more
