Federal Court of Appeal hearings this week look at election, employment, immigration, pension issues
This week, hearings scheduled before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal, and the Federal Court will involve matters relating to Charter rights, elections, employment, environmental law, immigration, income tax, and benefits.
Supreme Court of Canada
The court scheduled Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse v. Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse du CISSS de la Montérégie-Est, et al., 40602 on Mar. 19, Tuesday. This Quebec case arose from applications relating to a young person’s treatment during stays in treatment and supervision units.
The court set Gabriel Boudreau v. His Majesty the King, 40810 on Mar. 20, Wednesday. The issue here was whether the trial judge made an unreasonable verdict by drawing illogical inferences and by drawing inferences that the evidence clearly contradicted. The Quebec Court of Appeal’s majority dismissed the appeal and found that the verdict was not unreasonable, illogical, or irrational.
The court scheduled Dwayne Alexander Campbell v. His Majesty the King, 40465 on Mar. 21, Thursday. The Ontario Court of Appeal found no breach of the appellant’s search and seizure rights. While he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his electronic communications, the exigent circumstances doctrine justified the police’s action, the appeal court said.
Federal Court of Appeal
The court set 2093271 Ontario inc. et al v. His Majesty the King, A-34-23 on Mar. 18, Monday. The appellant challenged a Tax Court of Canada decision and alleged that the trial judge erred in law and gave insufficient weight to relevant factors.
The court scheduled Robert De Pellegrin c. Sa Majesté le Roi, A-92-23 on Mar. 18, Monday. The appeal questioned a court order directing the appellant to pay the respondent costs of $6,000.
The court set Akim Mvana c. MCI, A-98-23 on Mar. 18, Monday. Here, the judge certified the following as a serious question of general scope: Was s. 36(3)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 2001 in contravention of s. 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and thus inoperative under s. 52 of the Charter?
The court scheduled the cases of MPSEP v. Medhanie Aregawi Weldemariam et al., A-148-20 and MPSEP v. Abel Nahusenay Yihdego, A-222-20 on Mar. 19, Tuesday. These arose from decisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s immigration division, which found the respondents inadmissible to Canada under s. 34(1)(f) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
The court set Christopher Priest v. PIPSC, A-173-23 on Mar. 20, Wednesday. This judicial review application challenged the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board’s decision on the issue of whether a settlement agreement was valid, final, and binding.
The court scheduled Noel Sinclair v. Attorney General of Canada, A-175-23 on Mar. 19, Tuesday. This arose from a Public Service Commission decision barring the appellant from seeking nomination and from being a candidate in a Yukon territorial election.
The court set Djillali-Lyes Abdat c. PGC, A-219-22 on Mar. 19, Tuesday. The appellant asked the appeal court to reverse an order under ss. 27(1.1) and 52(c) of the Federal Courts Act, 1985.
The court scheduled Gary Lalancette c. Procureur Général du Canada, A-63-23 on Mar. 20, Wednesday. This arose from an employer’s dismissal of the applicant after his refusal to submit to its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.
The court set Joseph Pilarski v. His Majesty the King, A-101-22 on Mar. 20, Wednesday. This appeal requested an amendment of an order so that there could be an in-court oral hearing as originally scheduled.
The court scheduled La Succession de Manoutchehr Bigdeli-Azari c. Procureur Général du Canada, A-343-21 on Mar. 20, Wednesday. This judicial review application questioned a decision by the Social Security Tribunal’s appeal division. The issue was whether an estate was entitled to payment of an old age security pension and a guaranteed income supplement benefit.
The court set Sigma Chi Canadian Foundation v. Minister of National Revenue, A-167-23 on Mar. 21, Thursday. The appellant challenged the minister of national revenue’s proposal to revoke its registration as a charity under s. 168 of the Income Tax Act, 1985 and under r. 300(b) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.
Federal Court
The court scheduled the cases of Fourat Boussaid c. PGC, T-1029-23 and Fourat Boussaid c. PGC, T-1031-23 on Mar. 18, Monday. The applicant questioned the Canada Revenue Agency’s decisions relating to eligibility for the prestation canadienne de la relance économique and for the Canadian emergency response benefit.
The court set Kap Palmer v. Attorney General of Canada, T-1124-23 on Mar. 19, Tuesday. This judicial review application challenged a letter of the Canada Revenue Agency’s emergency validation division, which advised that the applicant was ineligible for the Canada recovery benefit.
