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 Federal Court dismissed judicial review in a refugee matter, finding the RAD reasonably refused protection to two minor applicants and properly assessed their claims separately from their mother’s.
Contrôle judiciaire accueilli : la Cour fédérale juge déraisonnable la décision de la SAR, qui n’a pas suffisamment motivé le refus visant la mère et le fils majeur.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review in a refugee case, finding no procedural unfairness from alleged ineffective assistance because the internal flight alternative findings were unaffected.
Contrôle judiciaire de refus de demandes CH rejeté : la Cour fédérale conclut que l’agent a raisonnablement examiné l’unité familiale et l’intérêt des enfants.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a refugee appeal decision, finding the RAD reasonably assessed cumulative discrimination, intersectionality, and persecution.
The Federal Court dismissed a judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision, finding a viable internal flight alternative and no section 96 error.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision, upholding an internal flight alternative finding for two Indian applicants seeking refugee protection.
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a RAD decision, finding no reviewable error in rejecting new evidence, limiting family-unity arguments, or assessing risk in the US foster care system.
Admit post-decision country and social media evidence relevant to Ms. G's sur place claim and find she faces a serious possibility of persecution for anti-war expressions by the Russian state; exclude proposed new evidence aimed at repairing credibility on Mr. A's claim as it was reasonably available earlier or not credible, and uphold RPD’s adverse credibility findings regarding Mr. A; deny oral hearing because admitted evidence did not raise a central serious issue requiring one.
Source excerpt
Appellants are Chilean nationals and failed to establish, by a required link between general country conditions and their personal circumstances or clear and convincing evidence of ineffective state protection, that they face a real risk of persecution; therefore the RPD decision denying refugee/protection status is correct and is confirmed.
Source excerpt
Explore more
