CASE CENTRE
Real Cases. Real Outcomes. What They Mean For You.
Federal Court and Ontario court decisions in immigration litigation and personal injury, summarized and explained in plain language.
⚠ Informational Purposes Only — Not Legal Advice
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
Read in full
CASE CENTRE · IMMIGRATION LITIGATION · VISA REFUSALSSep 29, 2026
2026 FC 1207
Kariminezhad v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
A Canadian Experience Class refusal is set aside because the officer never mentioned the second employer letter and pay stubs that answered the stated concerns.
CASE CENTRE · IMMIGRATION LITIGATION · MANDAMUSJul 10, 2026
2026 FC 931
Dai v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
The Federal Court orders IRCC to decide a caregiver permanent residence application within 60 days after a roughly 42-month wait tied to program changes.
CASE CENTRE · PERSONAL INJURY · ACCIDENT BENEFITSSep 17, 2026
2026 ONCA 651
Jakupovic v. Intact Insurance Company
The Court of Appeal held that reporting a crash is not notice of intention to claim accident benefits, and restored a tribunal ruling denying relief for a claim filed about 22 months later.
The full archive
Every citation below is a real decision, and every row opens its own full case page that states what its summary was based on. Use the sidebar to jump straight to a category.
Immigration Litigation — Mandamus 5
The Federal Court orders IRCC to decide a caregiver permanent residence application within 60 days after a roughly 42-month wait tied to program changes.
The Federal Court orders IRCC to decide an overseas spousal sponsorship application within 90 days after a delay of nearly seven years that IRCC could not adequately explain.
The Federal Court orders IRCC to decide a study permit application within 30 days after a wait of more than two and a half years, and awards the applicant costs.
The Federal Court orders IRCC to decide an Iranian student's study permit application, left undecided for 1,262 days in security screening, within 45 days.
Federal Court orders a decision within 90 days on a Start-up Visa permanent residence file pending over 62 months, and holds that an applicant need not prove significant prejudice to get mandamus.
Immigration Litigation — Visa Refusals 9
A visitor visa refusal is set aside because the officer's reasons never engaged with bank statements, business and rental income and a sponsor's savings that contradicted the stated concerns.
The Federal Court sets aside a refusal that excluded a spouse from the family class because the sponsor had not declared him, finding the officer never justified the common-law finding.
A spousal work permit and study permit refusal is set aside after an officer speculated the applicants' bank balance was inflated and fraudulent.
A Canadian Experience Class refusal is set aside because the officer never mentioned the second employer letter and pay stubs that answered the stated concerns.
Federal Court sets aside a humanitarian refusal for a grandmother because the officer treated the best interests of her grandchildren like a hardship test and gave the bond little weight.
Federal Court sets aside a study permit refusal for ignoring the applicant's study plan, while rejecting the argument that IRCC's Chinook tool made the process unfair or fettered the officer.
Federal Court holds that IRCC's return of an application as incomplete can be judicially reviewed, and sets aside the return of a parent sponsorship over a demanded gapless CV.
Federal Court holds that IRCC's return of an incomplete grandparent sponsorship under the Ministerial Instructions is not a reviewable refusal, and a consultant's mistake does not change that.
The Court upholds a refusal of a spousal sponsorship on genuineness grounds — a losing example, where the timing of the divorces and interview inconsistencies counted against the couple.
Immigration Litigation — Inadmissibility 16
Federal Court dismisses judicial review of a security inadmissibility finding based on mandatory Iranian IRGC conscript service; compulsion did not defeat membership and duress was not made out.
Federal Court sets aside a misrepresentation finding because the officer preferred a verification call over sworn employer evidence, pay records and bank documents without weighing them together.
Federal Court upholds a five-year bar on a post-graduation work permit applicant whose consultant filed fake college documents; failing to supervise the consultant ended the innocent-mistake argument.
Federal Court dismisses a challenge to a misrepresentation finding against a student who answered 'no' to a question about criminal charges; the innocent-mistake argument failed.
Federal Court of Appeal rules decision-makers may consider whether duress was practically unavailable abroad when judging a foreign drug conviction for serious criminality, and returns the case.
Federal Court sets aside a misrepresentation finding and five-year bar where a DNA result alone was treated as proof of a knowingly false parentage claim.
Federal Court sets aside a misrepresentation finding over a job offer: concerns came up only at the end of the interview, and many involved the employer, not the applicant.
Federal Court sets aside a misrepresentation finding built on a document from an application the applicant had already withdrawn and replaced.
Federal Court upholds a work permit refusal and five-year bar: the experience letter did not come from the employer, and later proof of the real job did not undo that.
Federal Court sets aside a study permit refusal and misrepresentation finding: the officer's findings contradicted the evidence and the innocent-mistake explanation was not assessed.
Court of Appeal holds the Immigration Division can weigh the whole span of border-agency investigative delay, including before a section 44 report, when deciding whether to stay an admissibility case.
Federal Court quashes a work permit misrepresentation finding after former consultants advised applying under a program that had been eliminated; the negligence undermined the right to be heard.
Federal Court sets aside a study permit misrepresentation finding: the applicant was never told the bank was the source of the doubt, and the officer relied on an unclear bank reply.
A misrepresentation finding is set aside after a fairness letter stated a conclusion instead of raising a concern.
IRCC repeats its misrepresentation finding on the same record after the Federal Court had already sent the matter back — and the Court sets the second decision aside too.
The Federal Court dismisses a judicial review of an Immigration Appeal Division decision that kept a deportation order for serious criminality in place.
Immigration Litigation — Refugee Litigation 11
Federal Court upholds the rules that strip permanent residence from a refugee whose protection has ceased, rejecting Charter challenges under ss. 2(d), 7, 12 and 15 and certifying two questions.
The Supreme Court of Canada holds that excluding refugee claimants from Quebec's subsidized childcare discriminates against women, and extends eligibility to refugee-claimant parents in Quebec.
An overseas refugee resettlement refusal is overturned because the officer never told the applicant what differed from his brother's refugee file.
A refugee claim refused for having a viable internal flight alternative is upheld on judicial review — a losing example, not just wins.
A levirate-marriage persecution claim found to have "no credible basis" survives judicial review — the Court finds the RPD's finding reasonable.
A Refugee Appeal Division finding that Shimla, India was a viable internal flight alternative is set aside because the record contradicted its stated reasons.
A Sikh-rights advocacy claim is refused again: the RAD reasonably refused near-identical new affidavits from the claimant and his mother.
A refused Mexican restaurant owners' claim is sent back: the RAD rejected their account on speculation about cameras and relocation that no one had asked them about.
A Nigerian mother's refugee claim fails on judicial review: late, material changes to her story and contradictions with her husband's testimony supported adverse credibility findings.
A Mexican family's political-persecution claim loses on a Mérida internal flight alternative; the Court finds the RAD's combined section 96/97 analysis reasonable.
A Veracruz extortion victim loses on a Mérida internal flight alternative; the Court finds the RAD's two-part IFA analysis reasonable.
Personal Injury — Accident Benefits & LAT 18
The Court of Appeal held that reporting a crash is not notice of intention to claim accident benefits, and restored a tribunal ruling denying relief for a claim filed about 22 months later.
The Divisional Court sets aside a ruling that a catastrophically injured passenger was not an insured person, because it was made while an insurer priority dispute on that issue was pending.
The Divisional Court set aside a Licence Appeal Tribunal award of $120.40 a month in attendant care for a man with a 1999 brain injury, because supervision needs were ignored. The claimant won.
The Divisional Court dismissed an appeal from a tribunal decision refusing accident benefits after a January 2022 fall; it found no error of law and awarded the insurer $5,000 in costs.
The Divisional Court sent an accident benefits claim back to the Tribunal because it decided the case on a point both sides had agreed was not in play, without first hearing from them.
Divisional Court: an accident-benefits refusal notice need only tell the claimant about the right to apply to the LAT; the late dispute stayed barred and the appeal was dismissed.
A 19-year-old tetraplegic student athlete is found dependent on his sister for care; the Divisional Court dismisses the insurer's appeal and judicial review.
Divisional Court upholds the LAT: a TTC bus that struck a raised manhole cover collided with an "object", so an injured passenger is not caught by the public-transit exclusion from accident benefits.
Court of Appeal: income replacement benefits after 104 weeks require a complete inability to do suitable work, decided on all the evidence. Real-world job factors matter but are not separate tests.
Court of Appeal: the two-year limit to dispute an income replacement benefit refusal is subject to discoverability. An early denial, given while the man was working, did not start the clock.
Divisional Court rules a bus passenger thrown forward in a sudden stop gets no accident benefits: she is not "any other object" the bus collided with. A tort claim remains open.
Court of Appeal: non-earner accident benefits already paid must be deducted from a jury's award for past income loss. The SPECT scan evidence stayed in, and the rest of the verdict stood.
Divisional Court refuses to rewrite the rule that attendant care by non-professional family caregivers is payable only up to their economic loss; the wording is clear and the claim fails.
Court of Appeal holds the insurer that wins a priority dispute does not repay the loser's pre-arbitration expenses unless a claim was deflected; the Fund's own costs concern was left open.
On rehearing, the LAT awards a 25% special award for the insurer's long-delayed reinstatement of benefits, though catastrophic impairment and attendant care were not established.
A truck crashes into a man's home at 4:30 a.m.; the LAT finds his resulting psychological injury arose from an "accident" in which he was involved.
After the insurer removed her from the Minor Injury Guideline only following a case conference, the LAT awards a 15% special award ($13,019.34) plus interest.
A motion to extend time to appeal a LAT accident-benefits decision, filed nearly five months late, is dismissed because the delay was unexplained and the appeal sought to challenge facts.
Personal Injury — Slip & Fall / Occupiers' Liability 6
The Court of Appeal holds that a fall on ice beside a parked car is not an automobile claim in tort, so accident benefits are not deducted from damages against the lot's owner.
A slo-pitch player hit in the eye by a ball lost his claim against the Town: no breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act, and he had accepted the risk, even though his waiver did not apply.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from a jury verdict against a woman who fell on a homeowners' wooden stairs, upholding the exclusion of one of her expert's slip tests.
Superior Court holds a Waterloo plaza owner and its winter contractor 100% liable for an elderly woman's fall on ice: the contractor's checks were inadequate and the owner never inspected the work.
Court of Appeal: Ontario Place stayed liable for a concertgoer's knee injury on a wet, unfenced hill after it closed the bridge. His own fault, 25%, did not defeat the claim.
Court of Appeal: a lease may make tenants responsible for clearing snow and ice from exclusive-use areas such as their own front steps. The Residential Tenancies Act duty covers common areas only.
Personal Injury — Catastrophic Injury & Long-Term Disability 5
The Superior Court refused Sun Life's request to end a long-term disability claim before trial, finding genuine issues for trial.
Divisional Court: a catastrophically injured insured may claim home-modification benefits for a relative's existing home she plans to move into; the insurer was ordered to pay about $365,000.
Divisional Court quashes a LAT finding of no catastrophic impairment: zero ratings for double vision, nerve damage and medication effects were unreasonable. New hearing, different adjudicator.
Divisional Court dismisses a Criterion 8 catastrophic impairment appeal: LAT witness time limits, handling of two psychiatrists and late surveillance were fair; no mandatory before/after comparison.
Divisional Court sets aside a LAT catastrophic impairment and attendant care award for a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the adjudicator's ongoing advocacy, and orders a new hearing.
Personal Injury — Civil Litigation & Procedure 10
An Ontario judge dismisses a $600,000 claim over a knee injury in a competitive pickup basketball game, treating a defensive foul as part of the game and a risk the plaintiff accepted.
A judge dismissed a long-running car accident action after the self-represented plaintiff stopped attending and produced no physician evidence on the threshold, with $100,000 in costs ordered.
Supreme Court of Canada, 5-4: an Ontario resident hurt in a water-taxi crash in Venice could not sue the Italian companies in Ontario, even though his travel booking began with an Ontario contract.
Court of Appeal: an emergency doctor who learned of an abnormal CT after discharging a patient breached the standard of care by not calling her back. Liability for her death was upheld.
Court of Appeal: a car-crash injury claim started about six years after the collision was out of time. Hope of recovery does not delay the clock once the person ought to know the threshold is met.
Court of Appeal: a partial (Pierringer) settlement is refused only if it seriously prejudices the other defendants. The risk that a co-defendant cannot pay stays with them. Appeal dismissed.
Court of Appeal: a $300,000 costs award stood after a jury awarded only about $16,000 net, where the driver's insurer never made a money offer. Proportionality does not automatically cap costs.
Court of Appeal: prejudgment interest on a fall-injury award starts at a presumptive 5% but can move on evidence. It raised the rate to 8.46% for a plaintiff with a serious head injury.
One of the first Ontario decisions to award damages under the new tort of intimate partner violence — after a 54-year marriage — plus equalization and a permanent restraining order.
After the amendments to Rule 6.1.01, the Court orders one joint trial on liability but separate damages trials for two related collision actions.
Personal Injury — Insurance Defence & Coverage 11
Court of Appeal: a driver who had her mother claim to be the driver lost her insurer's defence; the court upheld a civil fraud finding because the insurer's ability to defend was damaged.
Court of Appeal: a fleet policy did not cover a leased car that was not on its schedule when it crashed.
Court of Appeal: after the at-fault driver's auto limits are paid, the injured person's family protection endorsement (OPCF 44R) pays before the at-fault owner's personal umbrella policy.
Superior Court holds a worker injured on his father's motorcycle was an insured person under his employer's OPCF 44R, so Allstate reimburses TD the $143,500 settlement.
Court of Appeal: if one co-owner lets a non-owner have the vehicle, both co-owners are liable for that driver's negligence, and the owner's policy must cover it though the driver is not named.
Superior Court: a scooter rider hit by a fleeing driver kept her claim; the insurer could not win summary judgment just because she did not note the plate. Reasonableness goes to trial.
Superior Court: in a fatal-crash suit, the defendant driver's insurer that denied coverage had to disclose its investigation records and policy-breach documents to plaintiffs, subject to privilege.
Superior Court holds a driver's personal umbrella policy is not auto insurance, so the driver was underinsured; after the appeal ruling, payment runs auto policy, then OPCF 44R, then umbrella.
Court of Appeal holds a woman killed in her own car was also an insured person under her husband's OPCF 44R, because her car had its own endorsement.
Superior Court: in a hit-and-run claim under the $1M family protection endorsement, an officer's account of what an unnamed motorist said was enough corroboration despite being hearsay.
The Court of Appeal holds the "no change in insurability" requirement is a condition precedent to contract formation, not limited by the two-year contestability period.
Foundational reference 17
The Federal Court (Trial Division) orders IRCC's predecessor to move a citizenship file stalled for three years behind a security review, and sets out the delay test still used for mandamus.
The Federal Court of Appeal rules that the Refugee Appeal Division must do its own analysis of the record instead of simply deferring to the first-level decision; the Minister's appeal is dismissed.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that an insurer could not reduce an underinsured-motorist payout by future Canada Pension Plan disability benefits, because CPP is not a private 'policy of insurance'.
The Supreme Court of Canada holds that a permanent resident visa valid on arrival is enough to appeal a removal order to the IAD, even if it expires before the hearing, and returns the appeal.
Federal Court declares citizenship obtained by false representation or fraud where the man took the oath on probation and said nothing; wilful blindness and recklessness suffice.
Federal Court sets aside a misrepresentation finding because the applicant had no meaningful chance to respond; often cited for the higher fairness owed before a five-year bar.
Federal Court treats undisclosed, unverified AI-generated citations in an immigration judicial review as grounds for costs; a follow-up decision orders counsel to pay a modest amount personally.
Federal Court finds an IAD misrepresentation finding unreasonable: the applicant corrected a false answer before any interview or discovery, and the IAD never assessed any remaining risk of error.
Court of Appeal holds an OPCF 44R insurer may deduct the policy limits of a jointly liable party, even one the injured person never sued, and that later subrogation recoveries are shared pro rata.
Court of Appeal holds a homeowner policy's excess family protection endorsement stacks on top of OPCF 44R, even where the at-fault driver's limit equals the 44R limit, with no exhaustion first.
Court of Appeal holds the two-year clock on an unidentified-motorist claim against an insurer starts when the insurer fails to pay after a demand, not when the phantom driver's fault is learned.
Court of Appeal holds an insured vehicle that travelled alongside an uninsured one was 'involved in the incident', so its insurer, not the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, pays the benefits.
Court of Appeal: an Ontario auto insurer cannot declare a policy void from the start over an application error. Without proper notice the policy stayed in force and the injured pedestrian could sue.
Court of Appeal holds a truck driver injured on the job in Florida had no OPCF 44R cover under his personal auto policy, because the policy's heavy-vehicle condition carries over into the endorsement.
Superior Court: a cancellation notice for unpaid premiums was valid despite saying 'guaranteed funds' and giving no payment address, so the driver had no policy in force at the collision.
On the Fund's appeal, the Court of Appeal holds the no-permission exclusion in the standard auto policy does not bar an innocent passenger in a stolen vehicle, so the owner's insurer may owe coverage.
The Supreme Court of Canada recognizes a new tort of intimate partner violence — a landmark expansion of civil liability for coercive, controlling abuse.