Indexed As: Mavi et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.
|
|
- Beatrix Tyler
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Pritpal Singh Mavi, Maria Cristina Jatuff de Altamirano, Nedzad Dzihic, Rania El-Murr, Oleg Grankin, Raymond Hince, Homa Vossoughi and Hamid Zebaradami (respondents) Attorney General of Ontario (appellant) v. Pritpal Singh Mavi, Maria Cristina Jatuff de Altamirano, Nedzad Dzihic, Rania El-Murr, Oleg Grankin, Raymond Hince, Homa Vossoughi and Hamid Zebaradami (respondents) and South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, Canadian Council for Refugees, Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence against Women and Children and Canadian Civil Liberties Association (intervenors) (33520; 2011 SCC 30; 2011 CSC 30) Indexed As: Mavi et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ. June 10, Summary: The eight respondents each sponsored a relative's entry into Canada as a member of the family class under either the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) or the former Immigration Act. In each case, the sponsored relative obtained social assistance after arriving in Canada (contrary to their sponsor's undertaking of support) and the sponsors were deemed to have defaulted on their undertakings. Both the IRPA and the former Immigration Act provided that the social assistance paid to the sponsored relative "may be recovered" from the sponsor by the provincial or federal government. The government of Ontario took steps to enforce the debt against each of the sponsors. The sponsors applied for various declarations. The sponsors argued that the words "may be recovered" indicated that the governments had discretion to forgive sponsorship debt. They also claimed that the governments violated their duty of procedural fairness by taking steps to enforce their undertakings without first giving them an opportunity to be heard and without taking into account their individual circumstances. The Ontario Superior Court dismissed the applications. The court held that the government was not vested with a discretion to consider on a case-by-case basis whether or not to enforce the debt and the legislation did not impose any duty of fairness towards sponsors in default. The sponsors appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at (2009), 259 O.A.C. 33, allowed the appeal. The court held as follows: the word "may" indicated some degree of discretion and both the IRPA and the former Immigration Act conferred a case-by-case discretion in the collection of sponsorship debt; Ontario had improperly fettered its discretion because its policy required that a defaulting sponsor repay the full amount of the debt, while a settlement for less than the full amount was an option expressly contemplated by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations; governments owed a duty of procedural fairness to the sponsors; the government was obliged to provide a process for individual sponsors to explain
2 their relevant personal and financial circumstances, to consider those circumstances, and to inform the sponsor that their submissions had been considered and to tell them of the decision made. The Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario appealed. The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal in part. While the court agreed with the court below that the sponsors were entitled to a basic level of procedural fairness, it held that the Ontario guidelines were adequate in that regard and were consistent with the statutory scheme. The court issued the following declarations "(i) Canada and Ontario have a discretion under the IRPA and its Regulations to defer but not forgive debt after taking into account a sponsor's submissions concerning the sponsor's circumstances and those of his or her sponsored relatives; (ii) Ontario did not improperly fetter its exercise of statutory discretion in adopting its policy. Its terms are consistent with the requirements of the statutory regime and met the legitimate procedural expectations of the respondent sponsors created by the text of their respective undertakings; (iii) Canada and Ontario owe sponsors a duty of procedural fairness when enforcing sponsorship debt; (iv) The content of this duty of procedural fairness include the following obligations: (a) to notify a sponsor at his or her last known address of the claim; (b) to afford the sponsor an opportunity within limited time to explain in writing his or her relevant personal and financial circumstances that are said to militate against immediate collection; (c) to consider any relevant circumstances brought to its attention keeping in mind that the undertakings were the essential conditions precedent to allowing the sponsored immigrant to enter Canada in the first place; (d) to notify the sponsor of the government's decision; (e) without the need to provide reasons; (v) that the above requirements of procedural fairness were met in the cases of the eight respondent sponsors". Administrative Law - Topic 2264 Natural justice - The duty of fairness - When required - Canadian citizens or permanent residents could sponsor their relatives to immigrate to Canada - If a sponsored relative obtained social assistance after arriving in Canada (contrary to their sponsor's undertaking of support) the sponsor was deemed to have defaulted and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (and the former Immigration Act) provided that the social assistance paid to the sponsored relative "may be recovered" from the sponsor by the provincial or federal government - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the government owed sponsors a duty of procedural fairness when enforcing sponsorship debt - The court stated that "the content of the duty of procedural fairness does not require an elaborate adjudicative process but it does (as stated earlier) oblige a government, prior to filing a certificate of debt with the Federal Court, (i) to notify a sponsor at his or her last known address of its claim; (ii) to afford the sponsor an opportunity within limited time to explain in writing his or her relevant personal and financial circumstances that are said to militate against immediate collection; (iii) to consider any relevant circumstances brought to its attention keeping in mind that the undertakings were the essential conditions precedent to allowing the sponsored immigrant to enter Canada in the first place; and (iv) to notify the sponsor of the government's decision. Given the legislative and regulatory framework, the nonjudicial nature of the process and the absence of any statutory right of appeal, the government's duty of fairness in this situation does not extend to providing reasons" - See paragraph 45.
3 Administrative Law - Topic 2264 Natural justice - The duty of fairness - When required - The eight respondents each sponsored a relative's entry into Canada as a member of the family class under either the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) or the former Immigration Act - In each case, the sponsored relative obtained social assistance after arriving in Canada (contrary to their sponsor's undertaking of support) and the sponsors were deemed to have defaulted on their undertakings - Both the IRPA and the former Immigration Act provided that the social assistance paid to the sponsored relative "may be recovered" from the sponsor by the provincial or federal government - The government of Ontario took steps to enforce the debt against each of the sponsors - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the sponsors were entitled to a basic level of procedural fairness and that the Ontario guidelines were adequate in that regard and were consistent with the statutory scheme - The court stated that "the policies adopted by Ontario would, if respected in its collection efforts, satisfy the legitimate procedural expectations of the sponsors, and meet the basic requirements of procedural fairness" - See paragraphs 73 to 78. Administrative Law - Topic 2267 Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Reasonable expectation or legitimate expectation - The eight respondents each sponsored a relative's entry into Canada as a member of the family class under either the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) or the former Immigration Act - In each case, the sponsored relative obtained social assistance after arriving in Canada (contrary to their sponsor's undertaking of support) and the sponsors were deemed to have defaulted on their undertakings - Both the IRPA and the former Immigration Act provided that the social assistance paid to the sponsored relative "may be recovered" from the sponsor by the provincial or federal government - The government of Ontario took steps to enforce the debt against the sponsors - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "While the terms of the IRPA undertakings support the position of the Attorneys General that the debt is not forgiven, they also support the sponsors' contention of a government representation to them that there exists a discretion not to take enforcement action 'in a situation of abuse or in other appropriate circumstances' (pre-2002) or 'if the default is the result of abuse or in other circumstances' (post-2002). Such representations do not conflict with any statutory duty and are sufficiently clear to preclude the government from denying to the sponsor signatories the existence of a discretion to defer enforcement. Given the legitimate expectations created by the wording of these undertakings I do not think it open to the bureaucracy to proceed without notice and without permitting sponsors to make a case for deferral or other modification of enforcement procedures" - See paragraph 72. Administrative Law - Topic 2272 Natural justice - The duty of fairness - Circumstances or powers to which duty applies (incl. extent of) - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 2264]. Administrative Law - Topic 8264 Administrative powers - Discretionary powers - Fettering of discretion - The eight respondents each sponsored a relative's entry into Canada as a member of the family class under either the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) or the former
4 Immigration Act - In each case, the sponsored relative obtained social assistance after arriving in Canada (contrary to their sponsor's undertaking of support) and the sponsors were deemed to have defaulted on their undertakings - Both the IRPA and the former Immigration Act provided that the social assistance paid to the sponsored relative "may be recovered" from the sponsor by the provincial or federal government - The government of Ontario took steps to enforce the debt against the sponsors - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the word "may" indicated some degree of discretion and both the IRPA and the former Immigration Act conferred a case-by-case discretion in the collection of sponsorship debt - The court also held that Ontario had improperly "fettered or abused the exercise of its discretion" because its policy required that a defaulting sponsor repay the full amount of the debt - That prohibited a settlement for less than the full amount, an option which was expressly contemplated by s. 135(b)(i) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations - Since the policy required full repayment in every case, regardless of the circumstances, that amounted to an improper fettering of the Minister's discretion under the statute - The Supreme Court of Canada did not agree that the Ontario collection policy conflicted with the intended scope of the discretion - The court stated that "the legislation allows the Minister to defer but not forgive sponsorship debt. This is also Ontario's policy. The policy provides that '[t]he defaulting sponsor is required to repay the full amount of debt. There is no forgiveness of the debt by the Ministry'.... It cannot be said that the Ontario policy here so 'fetters' the discretion as to be invalid" - See paragraphs 65 to 67. Aliens - Topic 2 Definitions and general principles - Legislation - Interpretation - [See fourth Aliens - Topic 1286]. Aliens - Topic 1286 Admission - Immigrants - Sponsorship - Enforcement of sponsor's undertakings (incl. sponsorship debts) - [See both Administrative Law - Topic 2264, Administrative Law - Topic 2267 and Administrative Law - Topic 8264]. Aliens - Topic 1286 Admission - Immigrants - Sponsorship - Enforcement of sponsor's undertakings (incl. sponsorship debts) - The eight respondents each sponsored a relative's entry into Canada as a member of the family class under either the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) or the former Immigration Act - In each case, the sponsored relative obtained social assistance after arriving in Canada (contrary to their sponsor's undertaking of support) and the sponsors were deemed to have defaulted on their undertakings - Both the IRPA and the former Immigration Act provided that the social assistance paid to the sponsored relative "may be recovered" from the sponsor by the provincial or federal government - The government of Ontario took steps to enforce the debt against the sponsors - The Supreme Court of Canada declared, inter alia, that Canada and Ontario had a discretion under the IRPA and its Regulations to defer but not forgive debt after taking into account a sponsor's submissions concerning the sponsor's circumstances and those of his or her sponsored relatives - See paragraph 79.
5 Aliens - Topic 1286 Admission - Immigrants - Sponsorship - Enforcement of sponsor's undertakings (incl. sponsorship debts) - Canadian citizens or permanent residents could sponsor their relatives to immigrate to Canada - If a sponsored relative obtained social assistance after arriving in Canada (contrary to their sponsor's undertaking) the sponsor was deemed to have defaulted and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (and the former Immigration Act) provided that the social assistance paid to the sponsored relative "may be recovered" from the sponsor by the provincial or federal government - At issue was whether the government owed sponsors a duty of procedural fairness when enforcing sponsorship debt - The Attorneys General of Canada and Ontario resisted the application of a duty of procedural fairness on a theory that the claims against the sponsors were essentially contractual in nature - They cited Dunsmuir (S.C.C.) for the proposition that procedural fairness did not apply to situations governed by contract - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the situation here did not come close to the narrow Dunsmuir employment contract exception from the obligation of procedural fairness - Unlike Dunsmuir, the governments' cause of action was essentially statutory - The terms of sponsorship were dictated and controlled by statute - The undertaking was required by statute and reflected terms fixed by the Minister under his or her statutory power - While the sponsors' undertakings had some contractual aspects, it was the statutory framework that closely governed the rights and obligations of the parties - See paragraphs 47 to 51. Aliens - Topic 1286 Admission - Immigrants - Sponsorship - Enforcement of sponsor's undertakings (incl. sponsorship debts) - Canadian citizens or permanent residents could sponsor their relatives to immigrate to Canada - If a sponsored relative obtained social assistance after arriving in Canada (contrary to their sponsor's undertaking) the sponsor was deemed to have defaulted and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) (and the former Immigration Act) provided that the social assistance paid to the sponsored relative "may be recovered" from the sponsor by the provincial or federal government - At issue was whether the government owed sponsors a duty of procedural fairness when enforcing sponsorship debt - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected an argument that the duty of fairness was overridden by the legislation - Such an argument was not consistent with the legislative text, context or purpose - Nothing in the relevant sections explicitly required Her Majesty to pursue collection of debts irrespective of the circumstances - Legislative use of the word "may" usually connoted a measure of discretion - However circumscribed, the existence of a discretion attracted a level of procedural fairness appropriate to its exercise - The Regulations were an important part of the statutory context - The Regulations distinguished between payment "in full" and payments "in accordance with an agreement with that government" - This could only mean that the government was authorized to limit enforcement to whatever amount was agreed upon with the sponsor, and no floor or ceiling (short of forgiveness) was fixed by the Regulation - The amount and terms of repayment were therefore within the discretion of the government decision maker - The court interpreted the IRPA and its regulations without reference to the terms of the sponsorship undertakings themselves - At best the undertakings reflected an administrative interpretation of the legislative framework - Section 3 of the IRPA stated the Act was intended to encourage family reunification but also recognized that successful integration
6 of immigrants involved "mutual obligations for new immigrants and Canadian society" - Debt collection without any discretion in relation either to sponsors or their relatives would not advance the purposes of the IRPA - See paragraphs 52 to 64. Statutes - Topic 1611 Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - General - Regulations and other delegated legislation - [See fourth Aliens - Topic 1286]. Statutes - Topic 2417 Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - General principles - "May" and "shall" - [See fourth Aliens - Topic 1286]. Statutes - Topic 2614 Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - Legislative or statutory context - [See fourth Aliens - Topic 1286]. Cases Noticed: Nicholson v. Haldimand-Norfolk Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Ontario (Attorney General), [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410, refd to. [para. 38]. Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 38]. Knight v. Board of Education of Indian Head School Division No. 19, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 653; 106 N.R. 17; 83 Sask.R. 81, refd to. [para. 38]. Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 38]. Mount Sinai Hospital Center et al. v. Quebec (Minister of Health and Social Services), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 281; 271 N.R. 104; 2001 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 38]. New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 38]. Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (B.C.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 781; 274 N.R. 116; 155 B.C.A.C. 193; 254 W.A.C. 193; 2001 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 39]. Canada v. Prytula; Canada v. Rhine, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 442; 34 N.R. 290, refd to. [para. 49]. White (Peter G.) Management Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) et al., [2007] 2 F.C.R. 475; 350 N.R. 113; 271 D.L.R.(4th) 361; 2006 FCA 190, refd to. [para. 49]. Canada v. Crosson (1999), 169 F.T.R. 218 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 49]. Optical Recording Co. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1991] 1 F.C. 309; 116 N.R. 200 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 54]. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 152; 324 N.R. 259; 189 O.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 57]. Canada 3000 Inc. (Bankrupt), Re (2004), 183 O.A.C. 201; 69 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57]. Greater Toronto Airports Authority v. International Lease Financing Corp. - see Canada 3000 Inc. (Bankrupt), Re. Ward-Price v. Mariners Haven Inc. (2001), 159 O.A.C. 117; 57 O.R.(3d) 410 (C.A.), refd
7 to. [para. 57]. Houde v. Quebec Catholic School Commission, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 937; 17 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 61]. Conseil de la magistrature (N.-B.) v. Moreau-Bérubé, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 249; 281 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 201; 636 A.P.R. 201; 2002 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 68]. Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539; 304 N.R. 76; 173 O.A.C. 38; 2003 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 68]. Statutes Noticed: Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, sect. 23 [para. 58]. Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, sect. 108(2), sect. 114(1)(c), sect. 115, sect. 118(1) [para. 24]; sect. 118(2) [para. 25]. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 3 [para. 62]; sect. 14(2)(e), sect. 145(2) [para. 26]; sect. 145(3) [para. 27]; sect. 146 [para. 28]. Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/ , sect. 132 [para. 23]; 135 [para. 29]. Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, sect. 11 [para. 54]. Immigration Act Regulations (Can.), Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/97-145, sect. 3 [para. 25]. Immigration Regulations - see Immigration Act Regulations (Can.). Authors and Works Noticed: Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John M., Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada (1998) (Looseleaf Update 2010), pp. 7-3 [paras. 38, 40]; 7-25, 7-26 [para. 68]. Mullan, David J., Administrative Law (2001), p. 178 [para. 40]. R gimbald, Guy, Canadian Administrative Law (2008), pp. 226 to 227 [para. 39]. Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 370 [para. 57]; 408, 409 [para. 61]. Counsel: Urszula Kaczmarczyk and Christine Mohr, for the appellant, the Attorney General of Canada; Robert H. Ratcliffe, Sara Blake and Baaba Forson, for the appellant, the Attorney General of Ontario; Lucas E. Lung and Lisa Loader, for the respondents, Pritpal Singh Mavi, Maria Cristina Jatuff de Altamirano, Oleg Grankin, Raymond Hince and Homa Vossoughi; Lorne Waldman and Jacqueline Swaisland, for the respondent, Nedzad Dzihic; Hugh M. Evans, for the respondents, Rania El-Murr and Hamid Zebaradami; Ranjan K. Agarwal and Daniel T. Holden, for the intervenor, the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario; Chantal Tie, Carole Simone Dahan and Aviva Basman, for the intervenor, the Canadian Council for Refugees; Geraldine Sadoway, for the intervenor, the Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence against Women and Children; Guy Régimbald, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
8 Solicitors of Record: Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, the Attorney General of Canada; Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, the Attorney General of Ontario; Lerners, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents, Pritpal Singh Mavi, Maria Cristina Jatuff de Altamirano, Oleg Grankin, Raymond Hince and Homa Vossoughi; Waldman & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Nedzad Dzihic; Hugh M. Evans, North York, Ontario, for the respondents, Rania El-Murr and Hamid Zebaradami; Bennett Jones, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario; South Ottawa Community Legal Services, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Council for Refugees; Parkdale Community Legal Services, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Metropolitan Action Committee on Violence against Women and Children; Gowling Lafleur Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. This appeal was heard on December 9, 2010, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following judgment of the Supreme Court was delivered in both official languages by Binnie, J., on June 10, Editor: Angela E. McKay Appeal allowed in part.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL)
S.C.C. File No. 33520 B E T W E E N : IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA - and - PRITPAL SINGH MAVI, MARIA CRISTINA JATUFF DE ALTAMIRANO,
More informationIndexed As: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Human Rights Commission (N.S.) et al.
Halifax Regional Municipality, a body corporate duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of Nova Scotia (appellant) v. Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, Lucien Comeau, Lynn Connors and Her Majesty the
More informationThe Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (appellant) v. Thanh Tam Tran (respondent) (A ; 2015 FCA 237)
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (appellant) v. Thanh Tam Tran (respondent) (A-531-14; 2015 FCA 237) Indexed As: Tran v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
More informationEmilian Peter (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) (IMM ; 2014 FC 1073)
Emilian Peter (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) (IMM-12508-12; 2014 FC 1073) Indexed As: Peter v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
More informationHer Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Robert Sarrazin and Darlind Jean (respondents) (33917; 2011 SCC 54; 2011 CSC 54)
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Robert Sarrazin and Darlind Jean (respondents) (33917; 2011 SCC 54; 2011 CSC 54) Indexed As: R. v. Sarrazin (R.) et al. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., Binnie,
More informationIndexed As: Ouellette v. Saint-André (Rural Community) New Brunswick Court of Appeal Larlee, Richard and Bell, JJ.A. March 14, 2013.
Gisèle Ouellette (applicant/appellant) v. Saint-André, an incorporated Rural Community (respondent) (89-12-CA; 2013 NBCA 21) Indexed As: Ouellette v. Saint-André (Rural Community) New Brunswick Court of
More informationAnd In The Matter of [...] Indexed As: Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, Re. Federal Court Mactavish, J. December 6, 2012.
In The Matter of an Application by [...] for Warrants Pursuant to Sections 16 and 21 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. C-23 (2012 FC 1437) And In The Matter of [...] Indexed
More informationIndexed As: Canadian National Railway v. Seeley et al. Federal Court Mandamin, J. February 1, 2013.
Canadian National Railway (applicant) v. Denise Seeley and Canadian Human Rights Commission (respondents) and Ontario Human Rights Commission, Federally Regulated Employers - Transportation and Communication
More informationIndexed As: Iyamuremye et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Federal Court Shore, J. May 26, 2014.
Oscar Iyamuremye, Jean de Dieu Ntibeshya, Jeanine Umuhire et Karabo Greta Ineza (partie demanderesse) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'immigration (partie défenderesse) (IMM-5282-13; 2014 CF 494;
More informationIndexed As: McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission
Patricia McLean (appellant) v. Executive Director of the British Columbia Securities Commission (respondent) and Financial Advisors Association of Canada and Ontario Securities Commission (interveners)
More informationIndexed As: Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. Federal Court Mactavish, J. April 18, 2012.
Canadian Human Rights Commission (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society, Assembly of First Nations, Chiefs of Ontario, Amnesty International (respondents)
More informationHer Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166)
Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51166) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. William Imona Russel (accused) (C51877) Her Majesty The Queen (appellant) v. Paul Whalen
More informationIndexed As: R. v. J.F. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver and Karakatsanis, JJ. March 1, 2013.
J.F. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (34284; 2013 SCC 12; 2013 CSC 12) Indexed As: R. v. J.F. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin,
More informationIndexed As: Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.) v. Human Rights Tribunal (B.C.) et al.
Workers' Compensation Board of British Columbia (appellant) v. Guiseppe Figliola, Kimberley Sallis, Barry Dearden and British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (respondents) and Attorney General of British
More informationIndexed As: Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)
Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society and Sheryl Kiselbach (respondents) and Attorney General of Ontario, Community Legal Assistance Society,
More informationIndexed As: Iamkhong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. Federal Court Noël, J. March 24, 2011.
Suwalee Iamkhong (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondents) (IMM-3693-10; 2011 FC 355) Indexed As: Iamkhong v.
More informationIndexed As: Kandola v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Federal Court of Appeal Noël, Mainville and Webb, JJ.A. March 31, 2014.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (appellant) v. Nanakmeet Kaur Kandola by her guardian at law Malkiat Singh Kandola (respondent) (A-154-13; 2014 FCA 85) Indexed As: Kandola v. Canada (Minister
More informationIndexed As: Mounted Police Association of Ontario et al. v. Canada (Attorney General)
Mounted Police Association of Ontario/Association de la Police Montée de l'ontario and B.C. Mounted Police Professional Association on their own behalf and on behalf of all members of the Royal Canadian
More informationIndexed As: Murphy v. Amway Canada et al. Federal Court of Appeal Nadon, Gauthier and Trudel, JJ.A. February 14, 2013.
Kerry Murphy (appellant) v. Amway Canada Corporation and Amway Global (respondents) (A-487-11; 2013 FCA 38) Indexed As: Murphy v. Amway Canada et al. Federal Court of Appeal Nadon, Gauthier and Trudel,
More informationKeith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants) v. The University of Calgary (respondent) ( ; 2010 ABQB 644)
In The Matter Of Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen on Findings of Non-Academic Misconduct on Appeal from the Ad Hoc Review Committee of the General Faculties Council Keith Pridgen and Steven Pridgen (applicants)
More informationA.M.R.I. (applicant/respondent on appeal) v. K.E.R. (respondent/appellant on appeal) (C52822; 2011 ONCA 417) Indexed As: A.M.R.I. v. K.E.R.
A.M.R.I. (applicant/respondent on appeal) v. K.E.R. (respondent/appellant on appeal) (C52822; 2011 ONCA 417) Indexed As: A.M.R.I. v. K.E.R. Ontario Court of Appeal Cronk, Gillese and MacFarland, JJ.A.
More informationIBM Canada Limited (appellant) v. Richard Waterman (respondent) (34472; 2013 SCC 70; 2013 CSC 70) Indexed As: Waterman v. IBM Canada Ltd.
IBM Canada Limited (appellant) v. Richard Waterman (respondent) (34472; 2013 SCC 70; 2013 CSC 70) Indexed As: Waterman v. IBM Canada Ltd. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., LeBel, Fish, Abella,
More informationIndexed As: R. v. Spencer (M.D.)
Matthew David Spencer (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) and Director of Public Prosecutions, Attorney General of Ontario, Attorney General of Alberta, Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Canadian
More informationCindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443)
Cindy Fulawka (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Bank of Nova Scotia (defendant/appellant) (C54467; 2012 ONCA 443) Indexed As: Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia Ontario Court of Appeal Winkler, C.J.O., Lang and
More informationIndexed as: Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
mugesera v. canada (m.c.i.) Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Appellant/Respondent on motion v. Léon Mugesera, Gemma Uwamariya, Irenée Rutema, Yves Rusi, Carmen Nono, Mireille Urumuri and Marie-Grâce
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.)
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Ronald Jones (respondent) (C52480; 2011 ONCA 632) Indexed As: R. v. Jones (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal MacPherson, Blair and Epstein, JJ.A. October 11, 2011. Summary:
More informationIndexed As: Sun-Rype Products Ltd. et al. v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. et al.
Sun-Rype Products Ltd. and Wendy Weberg (appellants/respondents on cross-appeal) v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, Cargill, Incorporated, Cerestar USA, Inc., formerly known as American Maize-Products
More informationIndexed As: Figueiras v. York (Regional Municipality) et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Rouleau, van Rensburg and Pardu, JJ.A. March 30, 2015.
Paul Figueiras (applicant/appellant) v. Toronto Police Services Board, Regional Municipality of York Police Services Board, and Mark Charlebois (respondents/respondents) (C58771; 2015 ONCA 208) Indexed
More informationA View From the Bench Administrative Law
A View From the Bench Administrative Law Justice David Farrar Nova Scotia Court of Appeal With the Assistance of James Charlton, Law Clerk Nova Scotia Court of Appeal Court of Appeal for Ontario: Mavi
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen, 2011 SCC 3 DATE: DOCKET: 32987
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen, 2011 SCC 3 DATE: 20110128 DOCKET: 32987 BETWEEN: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen and Stéphan
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.
Her Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Richard Gill (respondent/respondent) (C53886; 2012 ONCA 607) Indexed As: R. v. Gill (R.) Ontario Court of Appeal Doherty, Lang and Epstein, JJ.A. September
More informationAhani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002
Ahani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 72, 2002 SCC 2 Mansour Ahani Appellant v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Attorney General of Canada Respondents
More informationIndexed As: Dow Chemical Co. et al. v. Nova Chemicals Corp. Federal Court O'Keefe, J. September 5, 2014.
The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Global Technologies Inc. and Dow Chemical Canada ULC (plaintiffs) v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (defendant) (T-2051-10; 2014 FC 844) Indexed As: Dow Chemical Co. et al. v.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9 DATE: 20070223 DOCKET: 30762, 30929, 31178 BETWEEN: Adil Charkaoui Appellant and Minister of Citizenship
More informationIndexed As: Royal Bank of Canada v. Trang. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin, Sharpe, Cronk and Blair, JJ.A. December 9, 2014.
Royal Bank of Canada (plaintiff/appellant) v. Phat Trang and Phuong Trang a.k.a. Phuong Thi Trang (defendants) and Bank of Nova Scotia (respondent) (C57306; 2014 ONCA 883) Indexed As: Royal Bank of Canada
More informationSa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé)
Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Adjudant J.G.A. Gagnon (intimé) Sa Majesté la Reine (appelante) v. Caporal A.J.R. Thibault (intimé) (CMAC-577; CMAC-581; 2015 CMAC 2; 2015 CACM 2) Indexed As: R. v. Gagnon
More informationIndexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. Manitoba Court of Appeal Hamilton, Chartier, C.J.M., and Beard, JJ.A. July 5, 2013.
William Eric Hopkins and Christa Leigh Hopkins (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. (defendant/appellant) (AI 12-30-07742; 2013 MBCA 67) Indexed As: Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd.
More informationAli v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.), 2004 FC 1174 (CanLII)
Home > Federal > Federal Court of Canada > 2004 FC 1174 (CanLII) Français English Ali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C.), 2004 FC 1174 (CanLII) Date: 2004-08-26 Docket: IMM-5086-03
More informationKhosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir
Khosa: Extending and Clarifying Dunsmuir Andrew Wray, Pinto Wray James LLP Christian Vernon, Pinto Wray James LLP [awray@pintowrayjames.com] [cvernon@pintowrayjames.com] Introduction The Supreme Court
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2012 SCC 10 DATE: 20120316 DOCKET: 33651 BETWEEN: Halifax Regional Municipality, a body corporate
More informationIndexed As: Reference Re Securities Act
In The Matter Of a Reference by the Governor in Council concerning the proposed Canadian Securities Act, as set out in Order in Council P.C. 2010-667, dated May 26, 2010 (33718; 2011 SCC 66; 2011 CSC 66)
More informationSyllabus. Administrative Law. (Revised January 2017) Candidates are advised that the syllabus may be updated from time-to-time without prior notice.
Syllabus Administrative Law (Revised January 2017) Candidates are advised that the syllabus may be updated from time-to-time without prior notice. Candidates are responsible for obtaining the most current
More informationThe Exercise of Statutory Discretion
The Exercise of Statutory Discretion CACOLE Conference June 9, 2009 Professor Lorne Sossin University of Toronto, Faculty of Law R. Lester Jesudason Chair, Nova Scotia Police Review Board Tom Bell Counsel,
More informationHeld, the appeal should be allowed. Per Noël J.A. (Richard C.J. concurring): The matter raised herein was a pure vires issue. Therefore the applicable
CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES v. CANADA [2009] 3 F.C.R. A-37-08 2008 FCA 229 Her Majesty The Queen (Appellant) v. Canadian Council for Refugees, Canadian Council of Churches, Amnesty International and
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent)
Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent) Attorney General of Canada (appellant) v. Hussein Jama Nur (respondent) and Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of British Columbia,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) NELL TOUSSAINT. and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) File Number: 34336 BETWEEN NELL TOUSSAINT Applicant Appellant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Respondent
More informationAs soon as possible in s. 48(2) of IRPA: Not possible to Enforce Removals in Breach of the Rule of Law and the Charter
As soon as possible in s. 48(2) of IRPA: Not possible to Enforce Removals in Breach of the Rule of Law and the Charter Presented at the Canadian Bar Association 2014 National Immigration Law Conference
More informationRichard James Goodwin (appellant) v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents)
Richard James Goodwin (appellant) v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents) British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) and Attorney
More informationCase Name: Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser
Page 1 Case Name: Ontario (Attorney General) v. Fraser Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser on his own behalf and on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada, Xin Yuan
More informationRegina (respondent) v. Rajan Singh Mann (appellant) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (CA040090; 2014 BCCA 231)
Regina (respondent) v. Rajan Singh Mann (appellant) and British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (intervenor) (CA040090; 2014 BCCA 231) Indexed As: R. v. Mann (R.S.) British Columbia Court of Appeal
More informationIndexed As: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. v. Deloitte & Touche et al.
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, High River Limited Partnership, Philip Services Corp. by its receiver and manager, Robert Cumming (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Deloitte & Touche, Deloitte & Touche LLP,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 DATE: 20080307 DOCKET: 31459 BETWEEN: David Dunsmuir Appellant v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of New Brunswick
More informationADMINISTRATIVE LAW LAW COURSE SYLLABUS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LAW 372-003 COURSE SYLLABUS Instructor: David E. Gruber, F.C.I.Arb., B.Sc.Arch. (McGill), J.D. (U. of Vic), LL.M (Cantab) Contact: dgruber@mail.ubc.ca; (604) 661-9361 M-F 9:00 a.m. to
More informationProceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 Dianna Louise Parsons, Michael Herbert Cruickshanks, David Tull, Martin Henry Griffen, Anna Kardish, Elsie Kotyk, Executrix of the Estate of Harry Kotyk,
More informationCoram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ.
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron, Rothstein and Cromwell JJ. The following is the judgment delivered by The Court: I. Introduction [1] Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen,
More informationHer Majesty the Queen v. Augustus Roderick Hancock (2015 NLPC 1313A00983) Indexed As: R. v. Hancock (A.R.)
Her Majesty the Queen v. Augustus Roderick Hancock (2015 NLPC 1313A00983) Indexed As: R. v. Hancock (A.R.) Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court Gorman, P.C.J. March 2, 2015. Summary: The accused
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Applicant.
CITATION: St. Catharines (City v. IPCO, 2011 ONSC 346 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 351/09 DATE: 20110316 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT FERRIER, SWINTON & LEDERER JJ. B E T W E E N: THE
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.)
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Sheldon Stubbs (appellant) (C51351; 2013 ONCA 514) Indexed As: R. v. Stubbs (S.) Ontario Court of Appeal Sharpe, Gillese and Watt, JJ.A. August 12, 2013. Summary:
More informationFEDERAL COURT. THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION and THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS. - and -
FEDERAL COURT Court File No. B E T W E E N : THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION and THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS - and - Applicants THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION REFUGEES AND
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Hyson v. Nova Scotia (Public Service LTD), 2016 NSSC 153 Date: 2016-06-16 Docket: Hfx No. 447446 Registry: Halifax Between: Annette Louise Hyson Applicant v. Nova
More informationIndexed As: Thibodeau v. Air Canada. Federal Court of Appeal Pelletier, Gauthier and Trudel, JJ.A. September 25, 2012.
Air Canada (appellant) v. Michel Thibodeau and Lynda Thibodeau (respondents) and The Commissioner of Official Languages (intervener) (A-358-11; 2012 FCA 246; 2012 CAF 246) Indexed As: Thibodeau v. Air
More informationReview of Administrative Decisions Involving Charter Rights: The Shortcomings of the SCC Decision in Doré
Review of Administrative Decisions Involving Charter Rights: The Shortcomings of the SCC Decision in Doré February 24, 2014, OTTAWA Distinct But Overlapping: Administrative Law and the Charter Over the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Emms, 2012 SCC 74 DATE: DOCKET: 34087
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Emms, 2012 SCC 74 DATE: 20121221 DOCKET: 34087 BETWEEN: James Peter Emms Appellant and Her Majesty the Queen Respondent - and - Canadian Civil Liberties Association,
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NELL TOUSSAINT. and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA. and THE CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL Court File No.: A-362-10 BETWEEN: NELL TOUSSAINT Appellant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent and THE CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canada (Human Resources and Social Development), 2011 SCC 60 DATE: 20111208 DOCKET: 33511 BETWEEN: Attorney General of Quebec Appellant and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION : Royal Bank of Canada v. Radius Credit Union Ltd., 2010 SCC 48 DATE : 20101105 DOCKET : 33152 BETWEEN: Royal Bank of Canada Appellant and Radius Credit Union Limited Respondent
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA
COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Garber v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 BCCA 385 Date: 20150916 Dockets: CA41883, CA41919, CA41920 Docket: CA41883 Between: And Kevin Garber Respondent
More informationNOAHS ARK FOUNDATION AND ITIG TRUST AND NATHAN JOEL PEACHEY SECRETARY. and
Date: 20151019 Docket: T-761-14 Citation: 2015 FC 1183 Ottawa, Ontario, October 19, 2015 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice LeBlanc BETWEEN: NOAHS ARK FOUNDATION AND ITIG TRUST AND NATHAN JOEL PEACHEY
More informationCha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1507 (CanLII)
Home > Federal > Federal Court of Canada > 2004 FC 1507 (CanLII) Français English Cha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1507 (CanLII) Date: 2004-10-29 Docket: IMM-2347-03 Parallel
More informationPARWINDER SADANA. and MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Date: 20131002 Docket: T-1568-12 Citation: 2013 FC 1005 Ottawa, Ontario, October 2, 2013 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Manson BETWEEN: PARWINDER SADANA Applicant and MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY Respondent
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration); De Jong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 SCC 57 [2005] S.C.J. No. 58 DATE: 20051021
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350, 2007 SCC 9 DATE: 20070223 DOCKET: 30762, 30929, 31178 BETWEEN: Adil Charkaoui Appellant and Minister
More informationSyllabus. Administrative Law
Syllabus Administrative Law (Revised February 2015) Candidates are advised that the syllabus may be updated from time-to-time without prior notice. Candidates are responsible for obtaining the most current
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24 DATE: DOCKET: 34609
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24 DATE: 20140327 DOCKET: 34609 BETWEEN: Diane Knopf, Warden of Mission Institution, and Harold Massey, Warden of Kent Institution
More informationIndexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Hoy, A.C.J.O., Laskin and Tulloch, JJ.A. May 22, 2014.
Meredith Boucher (plaintiff/respondent) v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and Jason Pinnock (defendants/appellants) (C56243; C56262; 2014 ONCA 419) Indexed As: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. et al. Ontario Court
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Impulsora Turistica de Occidente, S.A. de C.V. v., 2007 SCC 20 DATE: 20070525 DOCKET: 31456 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: Impulsora Turistica de Occidente, S.A. de
More informationJAIME CARRASCO VARELA. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION. Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 28, 2009.
Date: 20090506 Docket: A-210-08 Citation: 2009 FCA 145 CORAM: NOËL J.A. NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: JAIME CARRASCO VARELA Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Heard
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Miljevic, 2011 SCC 8 DATE: DOCKET: 33714
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Miljevic, 2011 SCC 8 DATE: 20110216 DOCKET: 33714 BETWEEN: Marko Miljevic Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent CORAM: McLachlin C.J. and Deschamps, Fish,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: Breeden v. Black, 2012 SCC 19 DATE: DOCKET: 33900
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Breeden v. Black, 2012 SCC 19 DATE: 20120418 DOCKET: 33900 BETWEEN: Richard C. Breeden, Richard C. Breeden & Co., Gordon A. Paris, James R. Thompson, Richard D. Burt,
More informationPRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
a55 PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Fifth Edition by David Philip Jones, Q.C. B.A.(Hons.) (McGill), B.C.L., M.A. (Oxon.) and Anne S. de Villars, Q.C. B.Sc. (Southampton), LL.B. (Alberta) both of de Villars
More informationDecision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner. June 22, 2007
Decision F07-03 MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT David Loukidelis, Information and Privacy Commissioner June 22, 2007 Quicklaw Cite: [2007] B.C.I.P.C.D. No. 14 Document URL: http://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/other_decisions/decisionfo7-03.pdf
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Construction Labour Relations v. Driver Iron Inc., 2012 SCC 65 DATE: 20121129 DOCKET: 34205 BETWEEN: Construction Labour Relations - An Alberta Association Appellant and
More informationIndependence, Accountability and Human Rights
NOTE: This article represents the views of the author and not the Department of Justice, Yukon Government. Independence, Accountability and Human Rights by Lorne Sossin 1 As part of the Yukon Human Rights
More informationConstitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue
Constitutional Practice and Procedure in Administrative Tribunals: An Emerging Issue David Stratas Introduction After much controversy, 1 the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that tribunals that have
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53 DATE: 20111028 DOCKET: 33507 BETWEEN: Canadian Human Rights Commission and Donna Mowat
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Rogers Communications Inc. v. Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada, 2012 SCC 35 DATE: 20120712 DOCKET: 33922 BETWEEN: Rogers Communications Inc.,
More informationIndexed As: Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al.
Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. and Neil Godfrey (appellants) v. Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Canada Co./Microsoft Canada CIE (respondents) and Attorney General of Canada (intervener) (34282; 2013 SCC
More informationIndexed As: Moore v. Getahun et al. Ontario Court of Appeal Laskin, Sharpe and Simmons, JJ.A. January 29, 2015.
Blake Moore (respondent) v. Dr. Tajedin Getahun, The Scarborough Hospital - General Division, Dr. John Doe and Jack Doe (appellant) (C58338; 2015 ONCA 55) Indexed As: Moore v. Getahun et al. Ontario Court
More informationRequest for Ruling from the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Greenpeace
CMD 18-H6.157 File / dossier: 6.01.07 Date: 2018-06-25 Edocs: 5570467 Request for Ruling from the Canadian Environmental Law Association and Greenpeace Demande de décision de l Association canadienne du
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) NELL TOUSSAINT. and
S.C.C. File No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL) BETWEEN: NELL TOUSSAINT Applicant Appellant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Respondent
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA. CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: DOCKET: 34135, 34193
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: R. v. Punko, 2012 SCC 39 DATE: 20120720 DOCKET: 34135, 34193 BETWEEN: AND BETWEEN: John Virgil Punko Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Randall Richard Potts
More informationCITATION: Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 7969 COURT FILE NO.: 318/15 DATE:
CITATION: Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters v. Ontario, 2015 ONSC 7969 COURT FILE NO.: 318/15 DATE: 20151218 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: ONTARIO FEDERATION OF ANGLERS AND HUNTERS, Applicant
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Canada (Prime Minister) v. Khadr, 2010 SCC 3 DATE: 20100129 DOCKET: 33289 BETWEEN: Prime Minister of Canada, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Director of the Canadian Security
More informationSUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways), 2010 SCC 4 BETWEEN: DATE: 20100212 DOCKET: 32460 Tercon Contractors Ltd. Appellant and Her Majesty
More informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT J. WILSON, KARAKATSANIS, AND BRYANT JJ. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Ministry of Attorney General and Toronto Star and Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2010 ONSC 991 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 34/09 DATE: 20100326 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bridgewater (Town) v. South Shore Regional School Board, 2017 NSSC 25. v. South Shore Regional School Board
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: Bridgewater (Town) v. South Shore Regional School Board, 2017 NSSC 25 Date: 20161220 Docket: Bwt No. 457414 Registry: Bridgewater Between: Town of Bridgewater v.
More informationHer Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Ghassan Salah (appellant) (C46991)
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Ghassan Salah (appellant) (C46991) Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Randy William Parish (appellant) (C47004) Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Thomas J.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: PHS Community Services Society v. Canada (Attorney General), 2008 BCSC 1453 Date: 20081031 Docket: S075547 Registry: Vancouver Between: PHS Community
More informationMIN JUNG KIM JI HOON KIM. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20100630 Docket: IMM-5625-09 Citation: 2010 FC 720 Vancouver, British Columbia, June 30, 2010 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: MIN JUNG KIM JI HOON
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: West Vancouver Police Department v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2016 BCSC 934 Date: 20160525 Docket: S152619 Registry: Vancouver
More information