Many lawyers when they meet with clients often review rejected applications and/or appeals where it is obvious that the individual’s previous representative was incompetent. The examples of incompetence range from missed deadlines to ignorance of the law. Some specific examples include: former counsel being told by an Immigration Appeal Division member to “sit down” because … Read More
Mootness
The doctrine of mootness is an aspect of a general policy that a court may decline to decide a case which raises merely a hypothetical or abstract question. It applies when the decision of a court will not have the effect of resolving a live controversy which affects or may affect the rights of the parties.
Mandamus Orders
A mandamus order is a judicial command to a government body to do, or forbear from, doing a specific act which it is obligated in law to do. The Federal Court’s decision in Vaziri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1159, is one of the most cited case in the immigration context for … Read More
When the Court Will Award Costs
In this post, which will be updated frequently, I will be looking at scenarios where the Federal Court ordered costs. I’m hoping that this post can become a useful reference for Federal Court practitioners.
Supreme Court Clarifies Dangerous Driving Law
The Supreme Court of Canada in 2012 clarified the law regarding what constitutes dangerous driving under the Criminal Code. The decision, R v. Roy, has implications for people who may be inadmissible to Canada for criminality. Indeed, in Jolly v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Federal Court of Canada affirmed that it will be a reviewable … Read More
Asking the Embassy to Re-Consider an Application
Once a decision has been rendered in relation to an application for a humanitarian and compassionate exemption, is the ability of the decision-maker to reopen or reconsider the application on the basis of further evidence provided by an applicant limited by the doctrine of functus officio?
The “Innocent Mistake” Defence to Misrepresentation
Canadian immigration law provides that a person who makes an application must answer truthfully all questions put to them for the purpose of the examination. One of the most difficult issues to resolve when an individual is immigrating to Canada are allegations from the Government of Canada about misrepresentation. Section 40(1)(a) of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee … Read More
Secret Evidence Used Against Me? (On Extrinsic Evidence) [Updated]
Where immigration officers have extrinsic evidence particular to an applicant, and that applicant is unaware that the immigration officer has that evidence, then procedural fairness requires that immigration officers disclose this evidence to the applicant.
Showing that the Visa Officer or IRB Member or CBSA Officer Was Biased
Many individuals think that either a visa officer, a Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA“) officer or an Immigration and Refugee Board member is biased against them. This is not an argument to make lightly. Test for Bias In Committee for Justice and Liberty et al. v. National Energy Board et al., 1976 2 (SCC), [1978] … Read More
Considering the Evidence in its Entirety
One of the most common reasons for seeking judicial review is because of concerns that a tribunal did not consider an applicant’s evidence in its entirety. Relevant Documents Must be Considered or Mentioned Federal Court of Canada jurisprudence is clear that when assessing the credibility of an individual, tribunals have to consider and assess all of … Read More