Andrei Kuznetcov v. Le Ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile, 2025 CF 1367
Mr. Andrei Kuznetcov, a Russian citizen, sought judicial review of a decision by the Immigration Section (SI) which found him inadmissible to Canada and ordered his removal due to his past membership in the border forces, an entity under the direction of the KGB, which was deemed to have engaged in acts of espionage against Canada.
The Federal Court rejected Mr. Kuznetcov's application for judicial review, upholding the SI's conclusion that he was inadmissible. The Court found the SI's decision to be reasonable, clear, justified, and intelligible, reiterating that membership in an organization involved in espionage, even if indirect, is sufficient for inadmissibility under Canadian immigration law.
Johnson v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1364
The applicant, whose refugee status was revoked due to misrepresentation, sought permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, but her application was refused because she failed to establish her identity.
The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application, affirming the immigration officer's reasonable finding that the applicant had not proven her identity, which was a determinative factor in the refusal.
DAWIT ANDEBRAHAN TAFERE v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 1358
The applicant, a citizen of Eritrea and UN-recognized Convention refugee, applied for resettlement in Canada. His application was refused by an immigration officer who found insufficient information regarding his administrative duties in national service and doubted his truthfulness.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review, setting aside the officer's decision. The Court found that the officer's disbelief was based solely on personal experience and implausibility findings, which was an unreasonable application of settled legal principles.
Sinem Cetin v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1359
Applicants, nationals of Türkiye and Syria, were refused work permits under a Temporary Public Policy (TPP) designed for earthquake victims, as immigration officers found they were not physically present in Canada when the decisions were rendered.
The Federal Court dismissed the applications for judicial review, upholding the immigration officers' interpretation that the TPP required physical presence in Canada at the time of decision. The Court found no unreasonable interpretation of the TPP, no breach of procedural fairness, and no question of general importance.
Mac’s Convenience Stores Inc. v. Basyal, 2025 BCCA 284 (CanLII)
A group of temporary foreign workers (TFWs) came to Canada for jobs at Mac’s Convenience Stores. They alleged that the recruitment firm hired by Mac's, Overseas Immigration Services, charged them illegal fees. A subgroup of these workers also arrived in Canada to find the promised jobs did not exist.
The B.C. Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's decision, finding that Mac's was not vicariously liable for the recruiter's alleged breach of fiduciary duty because the recruiter was not a true "agent" in the legal sense. The Court also ruled that the workers whose jobs disappeared did have a legal duty to mitigate their losses by trying to find alternative employment.
Omone Bridget Ekong v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1355
The applicant, a 41-year-old Nigerian single mother with extensive work experience, sought a study permit for a post-graduate certificate in Canada. The immigration officer refused her application, concluding that her purpose of visit was inconsistent with a temporary stay and negated the necessity for international education.
The Federal Court granted the judicial review application, finding the immigration officer's decision unreasonable. The Court highlighted the officer's failure to consider crucial evidence of the applicant's ties to Nigeria and her legitimate career advancement goals, which contradicted the refusal.
Lin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 1344
The Applicants sought judicial review of a refusal of their permanent residence application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, alleging their former immigration consultant provided ineffective assistance by failing to file evidence addressing hardship.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the former counsel's conduct fell below the standard of reasonable professional judgment and compromised the fairness of the adjudicative process, remitting the matter for redetermination.
Iftikhar Ahmed Rubina Iftikhar v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1342
The Applicants, a married couple from Pakistan, had their refugee protection claims excluded by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in France, based on a finding that they held substantially similar rights to French nationals. The RPD determined they had Permanent Resident status in France which they voluntarily lost.
The Federal Court granted the Application for judicial review, finding the RPD's decision unreasonable. The RPD failed to adequately engage with the Applicants' arguments and evidence that they never held Permanent Resident status in France, but rather a limited resident card holder status.
SHAKEEL KHAN MOHAMMAD v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2025 FC 1343
The Applicant, an Indian citizen with an employer-specific work permit offer and positive LMIA, was refused his work permit because the officer was not satisfied he could adequately perform the work, citing insufficient evidence of work experience.
The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, finding the officer's decision unreasonable due to a lack of transparency and justification, as the officer failed to consider submitted evidence and adequately explain why specific financial documents were required. Federal Court rules that in a work permit application if an applicant includes reference letters as proof of work experience then the officer must assess the reference letters, and cannot simply refuse the application because bank statements showing deposits or tax information was not provided.
Oleksandr Zahrebelnyi and others v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2025 FC 1338
The Applicants, led by a Principal Applicant who previously served with Ukraine's Secret Service (SBU), faced inadmissibility to Canada under security grounds due to the SBU's alleged engagement in subversion against democratic processes. The Officer determined the SBU engaged in political repression and election fraud, leading to the refusal of the Applicants' humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application.
The Federal Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Officer's interpretation of 'subversion' to include resisting change and maintaining the status quo was reasonable. The Court also affirmed the Officer's assessment of the SBU's actions against democratic entities and the lack of a 'mens rea' requirement for the organization's intent.
