R. v. Zadi
The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed Ala Zadi’s attempted bail-review appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding no federal statutory appeal right exists.
- Bail
- Jurisdiction
- Right of appeal
- Charter issues
- Bail review
- Right-of-appeal
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
The Ontario Court of Appeal quashed Ala Zadi’s attempted bail-review appeal for want of jurisdiction, holding no federal statutory appeal right exists.
The Court held that, for s. 63(2) IRPA, the visa-holding requirement is assessed at arrival in Canada, not when the removal order is issued.
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for lack of jurisdiction, holding there is no appeal to the court from a Supreme Court opinion given on a s. 64 Assessment Act reference.
The appeal was quashed because the motion judge dismissed the limitation period motion without granting declaratory relief or finally determining the limitation defence; read as a whole the reasons show no final determination, therefore the order is interlocutory and appealable only to the Divisional Court with leave.
Source excerpt
The fresh evidence established a reasonable possibility that, had the appellant understood the immigration consequences of his plea, he would have acted differently; therefore the plea was uninformed, the fresh evidence is admissible, and the conviction must be set aside with a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed an application to quash an appeal, holding that the Attorney General had standing to appeal after appearing in the judicial review below.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of an exclusion order and IAD jurisdiction ruling, finding no procedural unfairness and holding the visa had expired before the order.
The Court of Appeal held it had no inherent jurisdiction to hear the small claims appeals and quashed them, rejecting the appellants’ constitutional challenge.
Fresh evidence was admissible and established that the appellant was not informed of the specific and serious immigration consequence of deportation without a right of appeal; counsel did not advise the specifics and the appellant did not wilfully blind himself; the appellant established prejudice because he would have elected to stand trial, therefore the guilty pleas were set aside and a new trial ordered.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court held that the sponsor had no right of appeal to the IAD because that right arose only when the visa was refused, after the FRFCA amendment.
Explore more