Indexed As: Iamkhong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. Federal Court Noël, J. March 24, 2011.
|
|
- Martha Bates
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Suwalee Iamkhong (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondents) (IMM ; 2011 FC 355) Indexed As: Iamkhong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. Federal Court Noël, J. March 24, Summary: The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) confirmed that the applicant, a woman of Thai origin, was to be removed to Thailand, as serious criminality made her inadmissible to Canada under s. 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The criminal conviction resulted from the applicant's non-disclosure of her HIV-positive status to her husband at the time. She applied for judicial review. The Federal Court dismissed the application. The IAD noted all the relevant Ribic factors. Ultimately, the negative factors overruled the positive aspects. The IAD's conclusion that the circumstances of the case did not warrant humanitarian and compassionate relief was reasonable. The applicant's proposed question was not certified. Aliens - Topic 1746 Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Persons convicted of crime - [See Aliens - Topic ]. Aliens - Topic or removal order - Appeals or judicial review (incl. reopening) - The Immigration Appeal Division confirmed that the applicant was to be removed, as serious criminality made her inadmissible under s. 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - The criminal conviction resulted from her non-disclosure of her HIV-positive status to her husband at the time - The Federal Court stated that "it is clear that immigration proceedings such as this one are not the forum to relitigate criminal convictions. The Court must accept the work of learned colleagues of the criminal courts and not introduce uncertainty by diminishing the impact of their rulings and going against legislative intent... The reason removal procedures have been engaged is that serious criminality is present, and that Parliament deems this important enough to warrant removal" - See paragraphs 33 and 34. The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), confirming that the applicant was to be removed - The Federal Court held that there was no basis in the applicant's argument that, in dealing with humanitarian and compassionate considerations in the context of s. 67(1)(c) of the Immigration and
2 Refugee Protection Act, the IAD fettered its discretion by relying on the "undue, undeserved or disproportionate" components of hardship derived from s. 25(1) - The nature of the discretion was the same - Not only was that supported by case law, but it was also a question of the internal coherence of statutes - "Surely, when Parliament uses 'humanitarian and compassionate grounds' in sections of the very same Act, the Court can presume Parliament's intent and purpose is to give these expressions the same meaning, as Parliament's coherence is presumed" - Further, the purposes of ss. 25(1) and 67(1)(c) were similar, namely, to relieve an applicant of a legal requirement of the Act or the Regulations - The IAD did not apply the wrong legal test - See paragraphs 37 to 39. The applicant was found to be inadmissible in light of her criminal convictions - The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) confirmed the decision - In its reasons, the IAD did not present a separate section for the "Family and Community Support" criterion, a Ribic factor that it was required to analyze - The applicant argued that the IAD omitted to fully appreciate the humanitarian and compassionate grounds of the case - The Federal Court held that the IAD's assessment of hardship was reasonable - The IAD was not required to draft a point-by-point analysis of all the Ribic factors - "It would be incoherent for a reviewing Court to proceed to such a formalistic analysis of the Ribic factors without actually analyzing the IAD's reasons" - See paragraphs 41 to 59. or removal order - Appeals - Humanitarian and compassionate grounds (special relief) -The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) confirmed that the applicant, a woman of Thai origin, was to be removed, as serious criminality made her inadmissible under s. 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - The criminal conviction resulted from her non-disclosure of her HIV-positive status to her husband at the time - Availability of medicine in Thailand was a core finding of the IAD, as it was on that basis that the IAD found the applicant to not suffer undue, undeserved or disproportionate hardship if removed - The Federal Court held that the IAD's assessment of hardship as one of the Ribic factors was reasonable - It was reasonable for the IAD to conclude that the applicant's evidence lacked specificity and was not conclusive on the matter of availability and cost of the drugs - The IAD's findings on the availability of medication in Thailand was supported by important documentation, not least of which was a report from Médecins Sans Frontières - See paragraph 53. The applicant was found to be inadmissible in light of her criminal convictions that resulted from her non-disclosure of her HIV-positive status to her husband at the time - The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) confirmed that the applicant was to be removed - The Federal Court held that remorse was reasonably considered by the IAD - "While the
3 Court warns against the IAD taking too negative a view of remorse, which may well be genuine, it cannot be said that remorse is determinative in this case. It seems as though the IAD focused on the breach of trust underlying the Applicant's criminal convictions and took a moral stance against it. This may not be the most tactful manner to address the issue of remorse; but the IAD's conclusion on remorse is not unreasonable, as it results from the IAD's appreciation of the Applicant's testimony as it arose before it" - See paragraph 60. or removal order - Appeals - Humanitarian and compassionate grounds (special relief) -The applicant requested to stay her removal for two to three years, so as to prove rehabilitation - The Federal Court held that the applicant could not take issue with the rehabilitation finding of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) - The IAD aptly noted that it was to analyze the possibility of rehabilitation, and not the evidence thereof; that the applicant was not a hardened criminal, and was unlikely to re-offend; and that she had taken steps with various AIDS-related organizations - Contrary to the applicant's representations, those were seen by the IAD as positive, and not neutral, factors - Hence, the court's intervention in regard to that factor was not required - See paragraphs 61 to 63. or removal order - Appeals - Humanitarian and compassionate grounds (special relief) -The applicant was found to be inadmissible in light of her criminal convictions that resulted from her non-disclosure of her HIV-positive status to her husband - The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) confirmed that the applicant was to be removed - Establishment was the Ribic factor which was most unfavourable to the applicant - Despite her 15 years in Canada, she did not master any of Canada's official languages, was dependant on the state for support, and lacked formal education - The IAD found that the positive establishment factors were belated and did not outweigh the negative ones - The Federal Court found that the decision was reasonable - The considerations set out in s. 3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, of integration (both cultural and economic), the importance of Canada's official languages, as well as the health and safety of Canadians, were reflected in the IAD's appreciation of the applicant's establishment - See paragraphs 66 to 71. The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), confirming that the applicant was to be removed ("serious criminality" made her inadmissible) - The criminal conviction resulted from the applicant's non-disclosure of her HIV-positive status to her husband - The Federal Court emphasized the nature of the application for judicial review - "[I]t is not a de novo appeal. As such, it is not open for the Court to re-weigh the evidence or otherwise substitute itself to the decision-maker. While the Court does recognize some strong tones in the IAD's reasons, these did not
4 blind the IAD of its duties to fairly and meaningfully address the case before it. Surely, this is an emotionally charged case. Navigating through the evidence and humanitarian considerations is not an easy task, especially not in this case. However, there is nothing to indicate that the Applicant did not get a full, legally sound analysis of her case" - See paragraph 73. Aliens - Topic 4069 Practice - Judicial review and appeals - Certification of question of general importance by Federal Court - At issue on this judicial review proceeding was the duty of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) under s. 67(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) - The applicant suggested the following question for certification: "In considering hardship as a humanitarian and compassionate consideration under s.67(1) of IRPA, is the IAD limited to considering only hardship that it finds amounts to the level of 'undue, undeserved or disproportionate' or should it consider all hardship as per the test set out in Chirwa?" - The Federal Court did not certify the question - The proposed question would go against coherence, as well as clear guidance from the Supreme Court - Also, the court was not satisfied that the question would be determinative of the appeal - The IAD properly analyzed all the evidence before it and weighed it - See paragraphs 79 to 83. Statutes - Topic 2617 Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - Harmonization (incl. presumption of coherence) - [See first Aliens - Topic ]. Cases Noticed: Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 280 N.R. 268; 2002 SCC 3, appld. [para. 7]. Al Sagban v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 280 N.R. 215; 2002 SCC 4, appld. [para. 7]. Ribic v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] I.A.B.D. No. 4, appld. [para. 7]. Bichari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 362 F.T.R. 7; 2010 FC 127, refd to. [para. 14]. Medovarski v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'immigration) (2005), 339 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 20]. New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R. (2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 25]. Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 27]. Abdallah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al., [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 1; 2010 FC 6, refd to. [para. 27]. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Mendoza Reyes, [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 690; 2009 FC 1097, refd to. [para. 27]. Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 29].
5 Chirwa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1970] I.A.B.D. No. 1, refd to. [para. 35]. Lim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.T.R. Uned. 884; 2002 FCT 956, refd to. [para. 36]. Rizvi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al., [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 678; 2009 FC 463, refd to. [para. 36]. Paz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 252; 2009 FC 412, refd to. [para. 36]. Delos Santos v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 409; 2010 FC 614, refd to. [para. 37]. Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 38] Québec Inc. v. Régie des permis d'alcool du Québec et autres, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 919; 205 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 38]. Barnash v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 348 F.T.R. 145; 2009 FC 842, refd to. [para. 40]. Ivanov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2007), 368 N.R. 380; 2007 FCA 315, refd to. [para. 42]. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Stephenson (2008), 322 F.T.R. 33; 2008 FC 82, refd to. [para. 42]. Vijayasingham v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 253; 2010 FC 395, refd to. [para. 42]. Brace v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 374; 2010 FC 582, refd to. [para. 45]. Bichari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 362 F.T.R. 7; 2010 FC 127, refd to. [para. 52]. Kanagaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 168; 2009 FC 295, refd to. [para. 61]. Martinez-Soto v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 642; 2008 FC 883, refd to. [para. 61]. Zazai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 318 N.R. 365; 2004 FCA 89, refd to. [para. 78]. Statutes Noticed: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 3 [para. 69]; sect. 63(3); sect. 64(1), sect. 64(2) [para. 4]; sect. 66, sect. 67(1)(c), sect. 68, sect. 69 [para. 6]. Authors and Works Noticed: Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp [para. 38]. Counsel: Aadil Mangolji, for the applicant; Lynn Lazaroff, for the respondent. Solicitors of Record:
6 Aadil Mangolji, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant; Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the defendant. This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 2, 2011, before Noël, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment and judgment, dated March 24, Editor: E. Joanne Oley Application dismissed. Aliens - Topic 1746 Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Persons convicted of crime - The Immigration Appeal Division confirmed that the applicant was to be removed, as serious criminality made her inadmissible under s. 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - The criminal conviction resulted from her nondisclosure of her HIV-positive status to her husband at the time - The Federal Court stated that "it is clear that immigration proceedings such as this one are not the forum to relitigate criminal convictions. The Court must accept the work of learned colleagues of the criminal courts and not introduce uncertainty by diminishing the impact of their rulings and going against legislative intent... The reason removal procedures have been engaged is that serious criminality is present, and that Parliament deems this important enough to warrant removal" - See paragraphs 33 and 34. Statutes - Topic 2617 Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - Harmonization (incl. presumption of coherence) - The applicant sought judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division, confirming that the applicant was to be removed - The Federal Court held that there was no basis in the applicant's argument that, in dealing with humanitarian and compassionate considerations in the context of s. 67(1)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the IAD fettered its discretion by relying on the "undue, undeserved or disproportionate" components of hardship derived from s. 25(1) - The nature of the discretion was the same - Not only was that supported by case law, but it was also a question of the internal coherence of statutes - "Surely, when Parliament uses 'humanitarian and compassionate grounds' in sections of the very same Act, the Court can presume Parliament's intent and purpose is to give these expressions the same meaning, as Parliament's coherence is presumed" - Further, the purposes of ss. 25(1) and 67(1)(c) were similar, namely, to relieve an applicant of a legal requirement of the Act or the Regulations - The IAD did not apply the wrong legal test - See paragraphs 37 to 39.
The 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 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 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 informationFANGYUN LI. and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20160421 Docket: IMM-5217-14 Citation: 2016 FC 451 Ottawa, Ontario, April 21, 2016 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore BETWEEN: FANGYUN LI Applicant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY
More informationCase Name: Rocha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Case Name: Rocha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Between Andro Rocha, Applicant, and The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent [2015] F.C.J. No. 1087 2015 FC 1070 Docket:
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 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: 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: 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 informationand THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Date: 20081106 Docket: IMM-2397-08 Citation: 2008 FC 1242 Toronto, Ontario, November 6, 2008 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes BETWEEN: JULIO ESCALONA PEREZ AND DENIS ALEXANDRA PEREZ DE ESCALONA
More informationIndexed As: Mavi et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.
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)
More informationMEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE INTERVENER, BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION
REGISTRY NO. IMM-3411-16 FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN: DAVID ROGER REVELL APPLICANT MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION RESPONDENT -and- -and- BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION INTERVENER MEMORANDUM
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 informationRecent Developments in Refugee Law
Recent Developments in Refugee Law Appellate Cases of Note Banafsheh Sokhansanj, Department of Justice Disclaimer This presentation reflects the views of Banafsheh Sokhansanj only, and not necessarily
More informationZUBAIR AFRIDI. and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20151120 Docket: IMM-1217-15 Citation: 2015 FC 1299 Ottawa, Ontario, November 20, 2015 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish BETWEEN: ZUBAIR AFRIDI Applicant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC
More informationEMIR SONMEZ. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20150116 Docket: IMM-5781-13 Citation: 2015 FC 56 Ottawa, Ontario, January 16, 2015 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Boswell BETWEEN: EMIR SONMEZ Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
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 informationThe Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Respondents)
A-473-05 2006 FCA 326 Jothiravi Sittampalam (Appellant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Respondents) INDEXED AS: SITTAMPALAM v.
More informationMORTEZA MASHAYEKHI KARAHROUDI. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20160510 Docket: IMM-4629-15 Citation: 2016 FC 522 Ottawa, Ontario, May 10, 2016 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley BETWEEN: MORTEZA MASHAYEKHI KARAHROUDI Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
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 informationKanthasamy v. MCI [2015] SCJ No. 61. The Test for Compassion
Kanthasamy v. MCI [2015] SCJ No. 61 The Test for Compassion I. Overview: The Supreme Court of Canada fundamentally altered the decision making process of s. 25 applications for permanent residency by expanding
More informationLAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
INTRODUCTION Purpose and currency of checklist. This checklist is designed to be used with the CLIENT IDENTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION PROCEDURE (A-1) checklist. It is intended for use by immigration counsel
More informationMOMIN WALIULLAH. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Federal Court Cour fédérale Montréal, Quebec, March 21, 2012 PRESENT: BETWEEN: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer MOMIN WALIULLAH and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Date: 20120321
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 informationPETER DOERKSEN BUECKERT DUSTIN CALEB BUECKERT. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Federal Court Cour fédérale Ottawa, Ontario, September 1, 2011 Date: 20110901 Docket: IMM-975-11 Citation: 2011 FC 1042 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Crampton BETWEEN: PETER DOERKSEN BUECKERT DUSTIN
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 informationIndexed As: British Columbia Teachers' Federation v. British Columbia Public School Employers' Association
British Columbia Teachers' Federation (appellant/union) v. British Columbia Public School Employers' Association (respondent/employer) (CA039123; 2012 BCCA 326) Indexed As: British Columbia Teachers' Federation
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 informationEULER PERNAS HERNANDEZ. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Date: 20090304 Docket: IMM-2072-08 Citation: 2009 FC 229 Ottawa, Ontario, March 4, 2009 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan BETWEEN: EULER PERNAS HERNANDEZ and Applicant THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
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: 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 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 informationTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION. and A069 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Ottawa, Ontario, April 8, 2014 PRESENT: BETWEEN: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and Date: 20140408 Docket: IMM-13216-12 Citation: 2014 FC 341 Applicant
More informationFRANCIS OJO OGUNRINDE. and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS; THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Federal Court Cour fédérale Ottawa, Ontario, June 15, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Russell BETWEEN: FRANCIS OJO OGUNRINDE and Date: 20120615 Docket: IMM-6711-11 Citation: 2012 FC 760 Applicant
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 informationRETAINING YOUR PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS
RETAINING YOUR PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic 180 Dundas Street West, Ste 1701 Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Z8 Telephone: 416-971-9674 Fax: 416-971-6780 After you
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 informationTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION. and MALEK ABDALLAH REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Source: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/61253/1/document.do (accessed 24.09.15) Date: 20120813 Docket: T-904-11 Citation: 2012 FC 985 [UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Ottawa,
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 informationJEGATHEESWARAN KULASEKARAM. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20150326 Docket: IMM-6847-13 Citation: 2015 FC 384 Ottawa, Ontario, March 26, 2015 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan BETWEEN: JEGATHEESWARAN KULASEKARAM Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
More informationGAUTAM CHANDIDAS, REKHA CHANDIDAS, KARAN CHANDIDAS, KUNAL CHANDIDAS, RHEA CHANDIDAS. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Ottawa, Ontario, March 8, 2013 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Kane BETWEEN: Date: 20130308 Docket: IMM-1748-12 Citation: 2013 FC 257 GAUTAM CHANDIDAS, REKHA CHANDIDAS, KARAN CHANDIDAS, KUNAL CHANDIDAS,
More informationLIZ COOPER. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
Federal Court Cour federal e Date: 20120131 Docket: IMM-3840-11 Citation: 2012 FC 118 Ottawa, Ontario, January 31, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rennie BETWEEN: LIZ COOPER Applicant and THE
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 informationCED: An Overview of the Law
Immigration and Refugees Notes for III: Persons Who are Inadmissible to Canada III.1: Security Grounds and Human Rights Violations FN1. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 34(1)
More informationMICHELLE PATRICIA FRANCIS. Applicant. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Federal Court Cour fédérale [UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION] Montréal, Quebec, December 21, 2011 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer Date: 20111221 Docket: IMM-3159-11 Citation:
More informationWORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS: Guidance to the Canadian Human Rights Commission from the Federal Court
The Canadian Bar Association 12 th Annual National Administrative Law and Labour & Employment Law CLE Conference November 25 26, 2011 Ottawa, Ontario WORKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS: Guidance to the Canadian
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 informationOP 10. Permanent Residency Status Determination
OP 10 Permanent Residency Status Determination Updates to chapter... 3 1. What this chapter is about... 5 2. Program objectives... 5 3. The Act and Regulations... 5 3.1. Forms... 6 4. Instruments and delegations...6
More informationEveryone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion;
Date: 20070904 Docket: IMM-3266-07 Citation: 2007 FC 882 Ottawa, Ontario, September 4, 2007 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington BETWEEN: DIOGO CICHACZEWSKI and GLORIA DANIELS Applicants and
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 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 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 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 informationROZINA GEBREHIWOT TEWELDBRHAN. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION MERHAWIT OKUBU TEWELDBRHAN. and
Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20120329 Docket: IMM-5859-11 IMM-5861-11 Citation: 2012 FC 371 Ottawa, Ontario, March 29, 2012 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mosley BETWEEN: ROZINA GEBREHIWOT TEWELDBRHAN
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 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 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 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 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 informationKlinko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (T.D.)
Klinko v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (T.D.) Alexander Klinko, Lyudmyla Klinko, and Andriy Klinko (Appellants) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Respondent) [2000] 3 F.C.
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 informationCURTIS LEWIS. and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS. and JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
Date: 20170621 Docket: A-17-16 Citation: 2017 FCA 130 CORAM: STRATAS J.A. WEBB J.A. GLEASON J.A. BETWEEN: CURTIS LEWIS Appellant and THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondent
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 informationERKAN ATES. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR ORDER
Date: 20040927 Docket: IMM-150-04 Citation: 2004 FC 1316 BETWEEN: ERKAN ATES Applicant Respondent HARRINGTON J. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION REASONS FOR ORDER [1] Turk, Kurd, Islamist,
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 informationLEYLA SMIRNOVA. and SKATE CANADA JURISDICTIONAL ORDER. Richard W. Pound, Q.C. Jurisdictional Arbitrator
SDRCC 16 0291 LEYLA SMIRNOVA (Claimant) and SKATE CANADA (Respondent) JURISDICTIONAL ORDER Richard W. Pound, Q.C. Jurisdictional Arbitrator Appearances: Laura Robinson for the Claimant Daphne Fedoruk,
More informationGLORIA ARACELI AYALA SOSA, PEDRO LUIS MONGE AYALA SOSA and NELSON EDUARDO LINARES CRUZ. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Ottawa, Ontario, May 6, 2014 PRESENT: BETWEEN: The Honourable Madam Justice Kane GLORIA ARACELI AYALA SOSA, PEDRO LUIS MONGE AYALA SOSA and NELSON EDUARDO LINARES CRUZ Date: 20140506 Docket: IMM-4079-13
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 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 informationFARZANEH KASHEFI. and CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY CS-77788/ JUDGMENT AND REASONS
Date: 20161028 Docket: T-536-16 Citation: 2016 FC 1204 Ottawa, Ontario, October 28, 2016 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Strickland BETWEEN: FARZANEH KASHEFI Applicant and CANADA BORDER SERVICES
More informationThe Voice of the Legal Profession. Comment on Draft Regulations under the Ontario Immigration Act, 2015
The Voice of the Legal Profession Comment on Draft Regulations under the Ontario Immigration Act, 2015 Date: October 2, 2017 Submitted to: Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration Submitted by: Ontario
More informationGLORIA INES NINO YEPES LUIS HECTOR CUERVO CHAVES (A.K.A. LUIS HECTOR CUERVO CHAVEZ) HECTOR DAVID CUERVO NINO. and
Federal Court Cour fédérale Ottawa, Ontario, November 24, 2011 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes BETWEEN: Date: 20111124 Docket: IMM-2118-11 Citation: 2011 FC 1357 GLORIA INES NINO YEPES LUIS
More informationAPPLICATION TO CEASE REFUGEE PROTECTION - SEC.108. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada XXXXX XXXXX
Immigration and Refugee Board Refugee Protection Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié Section de la protection des réfugiés Private Proceeding Applicant APPLICATION TO CEASE REFUGEE
More informationINDEX. (All references are to section number)
(All references are to section number) CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES education 14.4 emerging trends 14.7 employment 14.3 housing 14.5 immigration inadmissibility 14.2 deemed rehabilitation
More informationand REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] This is an application for judicial review by the Minister pursuant to section 72 of the
Date: 20090205 Docket: IMM-5512-07 Citation: 2009 FC 121 Montréal, Quebec, February 5, 2009 PRESENT: The Honourable Maurice E. Lagacé BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Applicant and
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 informationCase Name: Lorenzo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
1 sur 7 2016-01-28 16:34 Case Name: Lorenzo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Between Arthur Eisma, Lorenzo, Applicant, and The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent [2016]
More informationROZAS DEL SOLAR, PAOLA ZEVALLOS ZUNIGA, LUIS ZEVALLOS ROZAS, SOFIA ZEVALLOS ROZAS, MACARENA. and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION.
Date: 20181114 Docket: IMM-2645-17 Citation: 2018 FC 1145 Toronto, Ontario, November 14, 2018 PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Diner BETWEEN: ROZAS DEL SOLAR, PAOLA ZEVALLOS ZUNIGA, LUIS ZEVALLOS ROZAS,
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 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 informationPermanent Residence Alternatives H and C By Robin Seligman, Barrister & Solicitor and Cheryl Robinson, Barrister and Solicitor
Workshop 3C CLE May 13, 2011 Permanent Residence Alternatives H and C By Robin Seligman, Barrister & Solicitor and Cheryl Robinson, Barrister and Solicitor The application of humanitarian and compassionate
More informationINDEX. [Current to release ] (All references are to section number)
[Current to release 2014 3] (All references are to section number) CRIMINAL INADMISSIBILITY CITIZENS AND PERMA- NENT RESIDENTS admissibility hearings 3.8 decision making process 3.8(a) loss of permanent
More informationChapter Eleven. Fairness and Natural Justice under the IRPA
Chapter Eleven Fairness and Natural Justice under the IRPA Context for the Immigration Appeal Division The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) may allow an appeal if it is satisfied that a principle of natural
More informationChapter Eleven The Charter and the IRPA
Chapter Eleven The Charter and the IRPA Introduction The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) is called upon to consider constitutional questions in a variety of contexts. This chapter reviews the legislation
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 informationCanadian Centre on Statelessness Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion
Canadian Centre on Statelessness Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion Joint Submission to the Human Rights Council at the 30 th Session of the Universal Periodic Review (Third Cycle, May 2018) Canada
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 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 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 informationBill C-6, Citizenship Act amendments
Bill C-6, Citizenship Act amendments CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION IMMIGRATION LAW SECTION April 2016 500-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1S 5S8 tel/tél : 613.237.2925 toll free/sans frais : 1.800.267.8860
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 informationENF 6. Review of reports under subsection A44(1)
ENF 6 Review of reports under subsection A44(1) Table of contents Updates to chapter... 4 1. What this chapter is about... 6 2. Program objectives... 6 3. The Act and Regulations... 6 3.1. Considerations...
More informationIMM FC 246. Iftikhar Shoaq Jalil (Applicant) 2006 FC 246 (CanLII) The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Respondent)
IMM-735-05 2006 FC 246 Iftikhar Shoaq Jalil (Applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Respondent) INDEXED AS: JALIL v. CANADA (MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION) (F.C.) Federal
More informationBill C-43: An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act)
Bill C-43: An Act to Amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act) Publication No. 41-1-C43-E 30 July 2012 Revised 3 October 2012 Julie Béchard Sandra Elgersma
More informationGUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE CHAIRPERSON PURSUANT TO SECTION 65(4) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT. Guidelines on Detention
GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE CHAIRPERSON PURSUANT TO SECTION 65(4) OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT Guidelines on Detention Immigration and Refugee Board Ottawa, Canada Effective date: March 12, 1998 Table of Contents
More informationTO JR OR NOT TO JR? A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO ASSESSING THE MERITS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE IMMIGRATION CONTEXT. Last updated: November 2012
TO JR OR NOT TO JR? A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO ASSESSING THE MERITS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE IMMIGRATION CONTEXT Last updated: November 2012 Warren L. Creates, B.A., LL.B. and Jacqueline J. Bonisteel, M.A.,
More informationCountry submission: Canada. 20 January 2014
CONSEIL CANADIEN POUR LES RÉFUGIÉS CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES Submission to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention for consideration in Guiding Principles on the right of anyone deprived of his
More informationIMMIGRATION APPEAL DIVISION. What It Is and How It Works. qwewrt
IMMIGRATION APPEAL DIVISION What It Is and How It Works qwewrt ISBN 0-662 63824 7 Catalogue Number MQ21 18/1998 Produced by: Parliamentary and Public Affairs Immigration and Regugee Board Canada Building
More information