Selected Experience


1. Trus v. Canada (CIC), (Federal Court, IMM-7006-13, per Manson J.)

Judicial Review. On January 21, 2015 the Federal Court quashed and set aside the Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s decision refusing the Trus family’s humanitarian & compassionate application. The CIC’s findings of fact were found to be unreasonable in light of the medical evidence put before it.



2. Berdzenadze v. Canada (CIC), (Federal Court, IMM-7805-14, per Russell J.)

Judicial Review. On December 16, 2014, the Federal Court considered, on an expedited basis, and overturned the Immigration Division’s decision, because it found that Member Nupponen erred in law by refusing to consider alternatives to detention even though the Applicant’s identity was not yet determined. Justice Russell observed: “[7] The alternatives must be considered. The Board has its own view how the system works, but that view does not accord with the jurisprudence on point.”


3. Sidamonidze v. Canada (MPSEP), (Federal Court, IMM-1561-14, per Hughes J.)

Injunction. On November 24, 2014, the Federal Court temporarily stayed the commencement of the admissibility hearing, where the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board sought to determine whether Mr. Sidamondze is a member of the Georgian Organized Crime in Ontario.


4. Sidamonidze v. Canada (MPSEP), (Federal Court, IMM-1561-14)

Judicial Review. On October 27, 2014, the Federal Court granted leave and agreed to hear a novel legal question: does a permanent resident have a right to cross-examine a CBSA officer on his statutory declaration prior to the officer transmitting a section 44(1) report to the Minister.

5. Moscicki (#3 & #4) v. Canada (CIC), 2014 FC 993, paras. 4-5 (Federal Court, per Hughes J.)

Judicial Review. Issue: can a person who is on the government-funded ODSP support act as a bondsperson? The Federal Court said yes. While it clarified the law that plagued the Immigration Division with uncertainty, the court ultimately dismissed these applications.


6. Zaidline v. Canada (CIC), (Federal Court, IMM-3269-14, per Hughes J.)

Judicial Review. Issue: the Immigration Appeal Division’s refusal to exercise its jurisdiction to hear an appeal. Facts: the Applicant was found ineligible to act as a sponsor. She appealed that decision to the Appeal Division, where Member V. Zanfir concluded that due to the Applicant’s ineligibility, no decision not to issue her mother a permanent resident visa was made. As such, in his view, the Applicant had no statutory right to appeal seemingly “non-existent” decision. On September 11, 2014, Justice Hughes overturned Member Zanfir’s decision.


7. Grigorovich v. Canada (CIC), TB4-00096 (Immigration Appeal Division, IRB, per Member Paul)

Appeal. Issue: refusal of a spouse sponsorship application. On September 9, 2014, the Immigration Appeal Division overturned a Moscow-based visa officer’s decision refusing an outside-Canada spouse sponsorship application.


8. Chenhova v. Canada (CIC), (Federal Court, IMM-1713-14, per Prothonotary Milczynsky).

Motion. Issue: filing of evidence after the pleadings were closed. Having been satisfied that Ms. Chenhova raised serious issues preventing her from filing her own affidavit, on June 30, 2014 the Federal Court granted an order permitting filing of her evidence after the pleadings were closed.


9. Gavashelishvili v. Canada (MPSEP), (Immigration Division, IRB)

Detention Review. Allegation: inadmissibility to Canada based on organized criminality. Issue: should a person who is alleged to be a danger to the Canadian public and a flight risk be released from the immigration detention 3 days before his admissibility hearing? As a result of vigorous submissions during April 11, 14, 15, 22 and 29 and 30, 2014 hearings, Mr. Chsherbinin persuaded the Immigration Division that his client is neither the danger to the public nor the flight risk. Consequently, the Immigration Division released his client after 3 months of immigration detention and 3 days before his admissibility hearing. At the outset of the May 7, 2014 admissibility hearing, the Minister withdrew all allegations.


10. Pataraia v. Canada (CIC), (Fed. Court of Canada, IMM-2241-14, per Heneghan J. )

Judicial Review. Allegation: inadmissibility to Canada based on organized criminality. Issues: should the judicial review be expedited within a week? should the leave be granted? did the Immigration Division conduct a 30-day detention review fairly? On April 11, 2014, Mr. Chsherbinin persuaded the Federal Court to expedite the judicial review. On April 17, 2014, the Court granted leave and judicially reviewed the Immigration Division’s decision. On April 22, 2014, Justice Heneghan set the Immigration Division’s decision aside for being unreasonable. In addition to Odosashvili (below), this case further affirms detainees’ right to sur-reply during detention reviews.


11. Odosashvili v. Canada (CIC), 2014 FC 308 (per Zinn J.)

Judicial Review. Allegation: inadmissibility to Canada based on organized criminality. Issue: impact of the Minister’s “glaring misrepresentations” on the outcome of a detention review proceeding. On March 31, 2014, the Federal Court overturned the Immigration Division’s decision that continued Mr. Odosashvili’s immigration detention, because the Minister made “false submissions” and provided “inaccurate information in…the statutory declaration”. The case clarifies detainees’ right to sur-reply during detention reviews.


12. Canada (MPSEP) v. Sidamonidze (Fed. Court of Canada, IMM-1380-14 per McVeigh J.)

Injunction. Allegation: inadmissibility to Canada based on organized criminality. Issue: stay of execution of the Order for Release. Mr. Chsherbinin successfully resisted the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness’ injunction seeking to stay the Immigration Division’s decision that released his client from immigration detention. The Federal Court dismissed the Minister’s injunction on March 6, 2014.



13. Cohen, Husson and Bravi  v. Canada (MPSEP), (Immigration Division, IRB)

Detention Review. Issue: whether continued immigration detention is justified. On November 12, 2013, Mr. Chsherbinin persuaded the Immigration Division that Ms. Cohen, Ms. Husson and Mr. Brami’s continued detention is not justified. A week earlier, Mr. Chsherbinin assisted these clients in obtaining an “absolute discharge” for rare charges laid against them under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for working in Canada without authorization.


14. Sterling Tile v. LIUNA 183, (Lab. Arbitr., Arbitrator Trachuk)

Motion. Issue: non-union employee’s standing in a labour arbitration proceeding. On July 16, 2013, Mr. Chsherbinin successfully argued that a supervisor was entitled to third party standing in the arbitration proceeding together with an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and make submissions, and without bearing his share of costs.


15. Korolove v. Canada (CIC), 2013 FC 370 (per Strickland J.)

Appeal. Issue: denial of Canadian citizenship. On April12, 2013 Mr. Chsherbinin prevailed in a highly contested appeal arising from the Citizenship Judge’s denial of Canadian citizenship to the appellant.



16. Singh v. Chandel, FS-12-00038-29922, (Ont. S.C.J., per Czutrin J.)

Mareva Injunction & Norwich Order. Issue: freezing of assets. On November 27, 2012, Mr. Chsherbinin successfully obtained exceptional orders freezing the defendants’ banks accounts in Ontario and Canada-wide and requiring Royal Bank of Canada to release the detailed records of transactions.


17. Khodov v. Canada (CIC), IMM-8164-11 (Fed. Court of Canada, per Hughes J.)

Judicial Review. Issue: refusal to defer removal from Canada. On July 26, 2012, the Federal Court decided the judicial review in Mr. Khodov’s favour. The decision of an enforcement officer was quashed and remitted back for re-determination.


18. Chachanidze v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety & Emerg. Prep.), (Immigration Division, IRB)

Detention Review. Issue: whether the detention is justified. On February 10, 2012, Mr. Chsherbinin successfully argued before the Immigration Division of the Immigration & Refugee Board that Mr. Chachanidze’s continued immigration detention is not justified.



19. Khodov v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety & Emerg. Prep.), (Federal Court, per O’Keefe J.)

Injunction. Issue: deportation from Canada. On November 16, 2011, Mr. Chsherbinin successfully persuaded the Federal Court that the Enforcement Officer erred in law when he refused to defer Mr. Khodov’s removal from Canada.


20. Bennett v. Cunningham, 2011 ONSC 28 (Ontario Divisional Court, per Hackland J. )

Appeal. Issue: just cause dismissal based on insolence. In this case, the Ontario Divisional Court upheld Mr. Chsherbinin’s argument that one ill-advised letter from the employee to her employer, calling her “dishonest and negligent”, was not enough to justify firing her without notice. This case provides an interesting look into the nature of dismissal for cause and the challenge employers face when seeking to establish just cause for dismissal.


21. Elliott v. Mills Pontiac Buick GMC Ltd., 2010 HRTO 2360

Motion. Issue: the Applicant sought disclosure of privileged information, in order to opportunistically bolster her claim. In this case, Mr. Chsherbinin, on behalf of the corporate respondent, successfully persuaded the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal that the privilege was the employer’s and not the employee’s to waive.


22. Zvorygin v. Canada (CIC), 2010 CanLII83654 (IRB (App. Div.), per Member Macdougall)

Appeal. Issue: revocation of permanent resident status based on failure to comply with residency requirements. In this case, Mr. Chsherbinin successfully argued before the Immigration Appeal Division that the decision made by the visa officer at the Embassy of Canada in Moscow, Russia revoking the applicant’s permanent resident status due to his failure to meet the residency obligation was not valid in law.


23. La Citadelle International Academy of Art & Science Inc. v. Taheri, 2009, (Ont. S.C.J (Sm. Crt.)).

Trial. Issue: breach of contract. At trial, Mr. Chsherbinin successfully argued, on behalf of the corporate plaintiff, that the individual defendant fundamentally breached the contract for supply of educational services.