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
Judicial review of a negative PRRA was dismissed. The Court held the officer reasonably required personalized, forward-looking evidence and properly weighed the record.
The Federal Court set aside an Immigration Division inadmissibility decision, holding it unreasonably failed to consider non-refoulement when interpreting IRPA ss. 34(1)(b) and (f).
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review, finding the RAD reasonably applied Article 1E and section 98 to exclude the applicant from refugee protection based on his status in Ukraine.
The Federal Court allowed judicial review of refusals of H&C and PRRA applications, finding both decisions unreasonable and sending them back for redetermination.
The Federal Court allowed judicial review of an Immigration Division inadmissibility ruling, holding the decision was unreasonable because it failed to consider non-refoulement under Article 33.
La Cour fédérale accueille le contrôle judiciaire, jugeant déraisonnable le refus de visa et de protection, et renvoie l’affaire pour nouvel examen.
The application judge erred by failing to apply the rebuttable presumption arising from the RPD refugee determination and by improperly dismissing the child's clear and independent objection to return; the RPD's findings required deference and, absent case-specific rebuttal established on the record (including via oral evidence and cross-examination), the child could not be ordered returned; appeal allowed, order set aside, matter remitted to Superior Court and interim parenting orders granted.
Source excerpt
The motions to intervene were dismissed because the proposed interveners failed the Rule 109 usefulness test: their submissions would largely duplicate the appellant's detailed memorandum, risk raising new issues beyond the notice of appeal (including broad international law matters and evidence not in the record), could cause delay, and are unnecessary to resolve the narrow certified question on the heightened 'specific intent' requirement for organizations alleged to have engaged in terrorism; only international law that directly assists in deciding that specific question is permissible.
Source excerpt
La Cour fédérale rejette le contrôle judiciaire de M. Malik et confirme la décision de la SAI, concluant que l’analyse des facteurs humanitaires était raisonnable.
The Federal Court allowed judicial review of a PRRA refusal, finding the officer’s reasons internally inconsistent and failing to address Kurdish-ethnicity-based risk on the record.
Explore more
