Cases
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results, and litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
Kebaowek First Nation v Canada, 2025 FC 472
Decision Maker
Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Problem
The Minister approved a permit allowing harm to endangered species by the construction of a nuclear waste facility.
Approach
Judicial review application alleging the decision was unreasonable.
Result
The decision was overturned and sent back for redetermination because the project proponent did not consider all reasonable alternatives nor adopt the best solution to protect species at risk.
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.
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 the National Security Intelligence Review Agency had reviewed a related matter.
Approach
Judicial review application alleging the decision was unreasonable.
Result
The decision was overturned and sent back for redetermination because the CHRC's own factual findings undermined its treatment of the 3rd Figliola factor, 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.
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 the Board failed 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.
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.