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 of a RAD refusal, finding the adverse credibility analysis reasonable and no separate section 97 analysis was required.
The appeal is allowed because the presence of three additional near‑identical Basis of Claim narratives, combined with independent credibility defects (vague testimony, inconsistent factual answers, doubtful supporting documents), destroyed the Respondent's credibility and undermined his claim to be a Convention refugee or person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
The RAD allowed the Minister's appeal, set aside the RPD decision under paragraph 111(1)(b) IRPA, and found the Respondent is not a Convention Refugee nor a person in need of protection because the presumption of truthfulness was displaced by extensive, sometimes verbatim, similarities among nine BOC narratives, the Respondent failed to establish ownership of her BOC on a balance of probabilities, and therefore lacked credibility to support a finding of persecution risk.
Source excerpt
The General Division did not err: issue estoppel does not apply to bar the Commission from exercising its statutory reconsideration powers on a different claim and benefit period; prior Commission reconsideration decisions are not necessarily final for later distinct claims, so the cell phone classification could be reassessed for the December 2019 claim.
Source excerpt
On a balance of probabilities the claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1)(b) IRPA because he credibly showed a personalized risk to his life and risk of cruel and unusual treatment from a politically connected family acting with the Punjabi police, the state is unable or unwilling to protect him (presumption rebutted), and no viable internal flight alternative exists in India.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the RAD found major credibility deficiencies (duplicated BOC narrative, misleading template support letter, inconsistent conduct with JW tenets, lack of baptism/preaching/knowledge, and insufficient corroboration) and the proffered documents did not meet s.110(4) for new evidence; accordingly there is insufficient credible evidence to establish genuine Jehovah's Witness religious profiles or a serious possibility of persecution in Russia.
Source excerpt
Even accepting some RPD errors (failure to consider certain testimony and social media explanations), the appellant failed on the balance of probabilities to demonstrate a forward-looking risk of persecution or risk of harm in Uganda because there is no evidence of continued contact, threats, monitoring or consequences for failing to send money or pursue the alleged false claim; the NDP is considered but the LinkedIn/social media evidence was not admissible as new, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant's late admission of a false identity (established as Kenyan) and the Minister's corroborating intervention evidence fatally undermine his credibility; no new evidence meeting statutory criteria was admitted and the appellant failed to credibly establish a forward‑looking risk of persecution on a balance of probabilities, so he is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
The RPD's adverse credibility findings were reasonable: material and significant contradictions between the appellant's testimony, the original Basis of Claim and its amendment, together with affidavits that fail to explain omissions, undermine the central elements of the claim; on a balance of probabilities the appellant did not establish he is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, and the appeal is dismissed under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove his identity on a balance of probabilities: the Taskira was found not genuine (likely issued when he was not in Afghanistan), which undermines the Afghan passport obtained using that Taskira and, combined with a long pattern of multiple identities and fraudulent passports and absence of corroborating documentation, rebuts the presumption of validity of the passport and identity evidence; Moore is distinguishable and does not change the result.
Source excerpt
Explore more
