Category: Administrative Law Cases

The Court found that the officer ought to have disclosed a CBSA report that alleged certain funds were proceeds of crime and found a breach of natural justice. The Court provides a good analysis of what is extrinsic evidence.

The Court granted a declaration that found that the Minister erred in refusing to grant permanent residence status to the applicant when he had met all the requirements of being a permanent resident at the time he was called in but the officer refused to grant it.

The Court found a breach of natural justice when the officer sent a request for further information to counsel that was not the applicant's counsel on the case and as a result the updated information was not received.

The Court held that if an administrative tribunal could consider and decide legal questions it was a court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of providing a charter remedy.

The Court set aside a decision of a visa officer holding that given that there was a credibility issue fairness required that the applicant be given an opportunity to respond prior to the decision

The Court set aside a decision refusing to reopen holding that the tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction to determine whether or not there was a breach of natural justice: simply did not consider whether the "nature and importance" of the evidence presented by Mr. Seyoboka demonstrated that there had been a breach of natural justice. In my view, the Board is obliged, at least, to consider whether the applicant's evidence undercuts the basis on which the previous decision was made. This is certainly not to suggest that the Board has jurisdiction to reopen proceedings merely on the presentation of new evidence. Clearly, it does not. However, to respect the principle in Bougettaya, the Board must turn its mind to the question whether the applicant's evidence shows that the adverse finding against him or her was probably wrong.

The court stayed a citizenship revocation proceeding due to delay as an abuse of process.

The Court set aside a decision granting citizenship due to inadequate reasons.

The Court set aside a removal order because the Member failed to consider all the evidence in refusing the adjourment.

The Court set aside a finding of the visa officer that the applicant was inadmissible on security grounds. The Court found that the evidence which included secret evidence not disclosed to the applicant did not meet the reasonable grounds threshold and that the inferences of the officer were unreasonable.