Esheria Canada Case Law
Sign in
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Canada Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Canada case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Canada decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Immigration law MC0-10732

MC0-10732

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RPD erred by failing to analyze objective documentary evidence and by speculatively concluding the JNG cartel would have no interest in locating the appellants; documentary evidence establishes the JNG's widespread presence and capacity to learn of the appellants' location in Campeche or Cancun and, coupled with the serious recruitment threat, means appellants would face a real risk there; state protection is unavailable because of cartel links to police; therefore the appellants are persons in need of protection and the RAD substitutes that determination.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative (ifa)
  • State protection availability
  • Assessment of credibility
  • Organized crime threat assessment
  • Documentary evidence analysis
Read case analysis
Immigration TB9-30646

TB9-30646

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

Although parts of the appellant's account were found credible, on a balance of probabilities she failed to prove that adequate state protection in Sri Lanka is unavailable given post-decision changes in government and security personnel; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection and the RPD decision is confirmed.

Source excerpt

  • Convention refugee status
  • Protection claim (section 97 harm)
  • State protection availability
  • Admissibility of new evidence
  • Credibility and corroboration
  • Oral hearing discretion
Read case analysis
Immigration law TB9-19699

TB9-19699

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to show the proposed documents meet s.110(4) IRPA or that the RPD erred in a way that would alter the outcome; consequently the RPD's findings on credibility, lack of corroboration, and availability of state protection stand and there is no serious possibility of persecution or risk warranting protection.

Source excerpt

  • Admissibility of new evidence
  • Credibility assessment
  • State protection availability
  • Oral hearing denial
  • Procedural requirements under rad rules
Read case analysis
Immigration law TB8-05952

TB8-05952

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD dismissed the appeal because, on independent assessment, the cumulative credibility defects and inconsistent evidence fail to establish on a balance of probabilities that the Principal Appellant is bisexual or that the female minor faces a real risk of FGM; admitted new evidence was not determinative and did not justify an oral hearing under s.110(6), therefore the RPD decision rejecting refugee protection is confirmed under paragraph 111(1)(a) IRPA.

Source excerpt

  • Credibility assessment
  • Membership of a protected class (lgbtiq/sogie)
  • Female genital mutilation (fgm) risk
  • Admissibility of fresh evidence
  • Oral hearing under s.110(6) irpa
  • State protection availability
Read case analysis
Immigration and refugee law TB2-12404

TB2-12404

Court
Refugee Protection Division

The panel concluded on a balance of probabilities that the principal claimant lacked credibility on material aspects, that corroborating evidence was unreliable or inconsistent, that effective local remedies and state mechanisms existed and were not pursued, and that delay in claiming undermined subjective fear; therefore the claimants are neither Convention refugees under section 96 nor persons in need of protection under section 97 of the IRPA.

Source excerpt

  • Credibility assessment
  • Convention refugee determination
  • Persons in need of protection
  • Honour killings
  • Domestic violence
  • State protection availability
Read case analysis
Immigration and refugee protection act MB3-01301

MB3-01301

Court
Refugee Protection Division

The claimant failed to rebut the presumption that Colombia can provide state protection because documentary and testimonial evidence showed authorities investigated threats and took steps to offer protection and the claimant left soon after filing complaints, so the claim for refugee protection was denied.

Source excerpt

  • Well-founded fear of persecution
  • State protection availability
  • Need for protection under s.97 irpa
  • Evidence and credibility
Read case analysis
Immigration law MB1-05449

MB1-05449

Court
Refugee Protection Division

The panel accepted the principal claimant's testimony on the critical events leading to her flight and found she met the s.96 Convention refugee standard for gender-related persecution and risk to life at the hands of her former boyfriend; the panel rejected the son's claim because testimony was inconsistent about whether he was assaulted, there was insufficient corroboration, and state remedies in Saint Vincent were found available, so he did not meet s.96 or s.97.

Source excerpt

  • Convention refugee determination
  • Person in need of protection
  • Gender-related persecution
  • Credibility assessment
  • State protection availability
  • Domestic violence
Read case analysis
Immigration and refugee law MB1-02816

MB1-02816

Court
Refugee Protection Division

The claimants failed to establish a nexus between the harm (extortion and threats by gangs) and a Convention ground, and their risk was part of a generalized pattern of gang violence against a large subgroup (business owners) in Honduras; therefore paragraph 97(1)(b) does not afford protection and the claims must be rejected.

Source excerpt

  • Extortion
  • Gangs/maras
  • Generalized risk
  • Convention refugee nexus
  • State protection availability
Read case analysis
Refugee protection MA8-05699

MA8-05699

Court
Refugee Protection Division

The claimants' evidence was rejected as not credible because of significant inconsistencies and omissions across statements and documents, lack of corroboration, implausible explanations regarding removal of the child, and the failure to seek available protective or legal remedies in Mexico; accordingly the refugee protection claims under s.96 and s.97(1)(b) IRPA are dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Asylum claim
  • Incest/sexual abuse allegations
  • Credibility and inconsistencies
  • Parental custody
  • State protection availability
Read case analysis
Immigration law MA8-05810

MA8-05810

Court
Refugee Protection Division

Although the claimants were found credible, the panel determined the risk they face arises from widespread criminality affecting merchants and is therefore a generalized risk rather than a personal risk under s.97(1)(b); consequently they are not Convention refugees under s.96 nor persons in need of protection under s.97(1).

Source excerpt

  • Convention refugee
  • Person in need of protection (s.97)
  • Personalized risk vs generalized risk
  • State protection availability
  • Credibility and burden of proof
  • Organized crime and country conditions
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Canada decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.