Cases
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results, and litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
Lance v Canada, 2024 FC 787
Decision Maker
Minister of Health
Problem
The Minister denied a Special Access Program request for psilocybin to treat cluster headaches.
Approach
Judicial review application alleging the decision was unreasonable and violated Mr. Lance's s. 7 Charter rights.
Result
The decision was overturned and sent back for redetermination because it did not meaningfully grapple with central arguments, including Charter submissions.
Hameed v Canada, 2024 FC 242
Decision Maker
Prime Minister and Minister of Justice
Problem
79 vacant judicial positions caused a crisis of delays and cancelled trials.
Approach
Judicial review application seeking mandamus or a declaration that the vacancies must be filled.
Result
A declaration that the number of vacancies should be reduced to the mid-40s in a reasonable time.
Chaif v Canada, 2022 FC 182
Decision Maker
Parole Board of Canada
Problem
The Parole Board denied Mr. Chaif's application for day parole because he had not completed previously granted ETAs.
Approach
Judicial review application alleging the decision was unreasonable.
Result
The decision was overturned and sent back for redetermination because it was unreasonable for failing to explain why Mr. Chaif would pose a danger to the public on day parole when he was not deemed a danger for virtually identical ETAs.
Ariaratnam v Canada, 2023 FC 1248
Decision Maker
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Problem
The CHRC preliminarily dismissed Mr. Ariaratnam's discrimination complaint against CSIS because he had already had a National Security Intelligence Review Agency hearing on a related matter.
Approach
Judicial review application alleging the decision was unreasonable.
Result
The decision was found unreasonable, overturned, and sent back for redetermination because the CHRC's treatment of the 3rd Figliola factor was undermined by its factual findings, and the CHRC unintelligibly concluded the complaints before the CHRC and NSIRA were the same while also concluding Mr. Ariaratnam did not raise human rights issues at NSIRA.
Kruljac v Canada, T-1176-21
Decision Maker
Minister of Health
Problem
Mr. Kruljac requested an exemption under s. 56(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for treatment with psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy, but 100 days went by and the Minister had not rendered a decision.
Approach
Judicial review application seeking mandamus to compel the Minister to render a decision and requesting an urgent hearing.
Result
A hearing was scheduled on an urgent basis, and two days before the hearing, the Minister granted Mr. Kruljac's exemption.