Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII

Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about.

For this last week:

  1. Kaberwal v Saskatchewan (Economy) 2013 SKQB 244

    [1] This is an application brought by the applicant, Navjeen Kaberwal (“Kaberwal”), for judicial review of a decision made by the Ministry of the Economy, Immigration Services (“Ministry”) on December 31, 2012 suspending Kaberwal’s right to submit applications to the Ministry for a period of two years. The decision relates to the Ministry’s programs and services and in particular the Saskatchewan Immigration Nominee Program.

  2. Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) 2013 SCC 36

    A, a citizen of Libya, has been residing in Canada continuously since 1997, despite having been found to be inadmissible on security grounds in 2002. The finding of inadmissibility was based on his membership in the Libyan National Salvation Front (“LNSF”) — a terrorist organization according to Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”). A applied in 2002 under s. 34(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (“IRPA”), for ministerial relief from the determination of inadmissibility, but his application was denied in 2009. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (“Minister”) concluded that it was not in the national interest to admit individuals who have had sustained contact with known terrorist and/or terrorist‑connected organizations. A’s application for permanent residence was denied.

  3. Ramdath v. George Brown College of Applied Arts and Technology 2013 ONCA 468

    [1] The appeal was dismissed with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.
    A. Introduction and factual Background
    [2] The appellant appeals the judgment that the trial judge rendered on the common issues certified in this class proceeding. The trial judge found that the program description published by the appellant in its course calendar negligently misrepresented the benefits of its graduate international business management program and thereby breached the unfair practices provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A (the “CPA”). The program description stated that the program provided students “with the opportunity to complete three industry designations/certifications in addition to the George Brown College Graduate Certificate”.

The most-consulted French-language decision was Wightman c. Widdrington (Succession de) 2013 QCCA 1187

[1] Les appelants se pourvoient en appel contre un jugement de la Cour supérieure, district de Montréal (l’honorable Marie St-Pierre), rendu le 14 avril 2011, qui accueille l’action de l’intimée et les condamne solidairement à lui payer 2 672 960 $, avec les intérêts et l’indemnité additionnelle depuis l’assignation.

Comments are closed.