• Print
  • Immigration & Refugee Law accounts for 7 out of 711 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Agha (Mustapha) v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 564

Case does not raise issue worthy of appeal.

Canada (Attorney General) v Ward, [1993] 2 SCR 689

** State complicity is not required to ground a claim for the purposes of ‘unable’ or ‘unwilling’ in the Convention definition.
** 3 categories of particular social group
** Political opinion can be imputed from actions --- it is the opinion attributed to the claimant by their persecutors that is determinative

Charkaoui v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9, [2007] 1 SCR 350

Add special advocates to review of reasonableness of certificates ( now s.77(2)) and detention review (now s.82), and give FNs and PRs the same rights to review of detention under (former) s.84(2)

Ezokola v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FCA 224

A senior official who remains in his/her position without protest and continuing to defend the interests of their gov't while being aware of the crimes committed by this gov't may demonstrate ‘personal knowledge and participation’ in these crimes and be complicit with the gov't in their commission.

Krauchanka v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 209

No question of general importance was raised by the case -- but shows that each case needs to considered independently on its own merits.
** But judge also says officer was entitled to consider Mr. K’s own misconduct in making the determination.

Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1

Generally to deport a refugee, where there are grounds to believe that this would subject the refugee to a substantial risk of torture, would unconstitutionally violate the Charter's s. 7 guarantee of LLSOP. This said, we leave open the possibility that in an exceptional case such deportation might be justified either in the balancing approach under ss. 7 or 1 of the Charter.

The procedures for deportation under the [now IRPA], when applied properly and in line with the safeguards outlined above, conforms to the Charter.

Wijesinghe v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 54

Accepting a lower level position than one is qualified for is not a basis for denying a work visa.

A foreign national’s duel intention of becoming a permanent resident and applying for temporary work visa/residence cannot be a basis for rejecting their work visa so long as it is not believed that the foreign national plans to remain illegally after the expiry of the visa