Judicial Review (Spouse Sponsorship). On February 1, 2016 Justice Boswell granted leave in Mr. Gechuashvili’s judicial review application, where he challenged the immigration officer’s decision refusing his in-Canada spouse sponsorship application.
Judicial Review (misrepresentation). On December 24, 2015 Justice Heneghan granted leave to judicially review the Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s decision, which refused Mr. Kvitsaridze’s permanent residence application for the alleged concealment of his foreign criminal convictions and misrepresentation.
Judicial Review (people smuggling). On December 21, 2015 Justice Gleeson granted leave to judicially review the Immigration Division’s decision, which found Mr. Gechuashvili inadmissible for the alleged people smuggling, stripped him of his lawful status in Canada and ordered him deported. The leave application was brought and decided on the expedited basis. Curiously, this is one of the first cases that the Federal Court is going to consider following the release of the Supreme Court of Canada’s historic judgment in B010 v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 58, where it reframed the legal test for people smuggling.
Judicial Review (H&C refusal). On December 14, 2015 Justice Brown granted the judicial review and remitted the matter back for re-determination. Notably, on December 10, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered an important judgment in Kanthasamy v. Canada (CIC), 2015 SCC 61, where it revamped the legal test for granting permanent resident status on H&C grounds.
Judicial Review (stay of deportation). On September 24, 2015 Justice Fothergill granted leave in the case that deals with the Canada Border Service Agency’s refusal to defer Mr. Logachov’s deportation to Ukraine. On December 16, 2015, during the course of judicial review hearing, the CBSA formally undertook not to remove Mr. Logachov to Ukraine, until his Pre-removal Risk Assessment is decided.
Injunction (organized criminality). On July 9, 2015 Mr. Chsherbinin successfully resisted the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness’ motion seeking to stay the execution of the Immigration Division’s order, which released his client from the immigration detention, where he was held on the allegation of association with a criminal organization. Due to the government’s improper conduct, Justice Bell condemned it – with a rarely awarded – legal cost in the amount of $1,000.
Injunction (restrictive covenants). On July 3, 2015 Mr. Chsherbinin successfully resisted Globe Express’ injunction, brought in the context of the breach of non-competition covenant, in which it sought to: (a) prevent Sparx Logistics from allegedly “misusing” its confidential information; and (b) obtain an order to inspect its computers. Justice McCarthy dismissed Globe Express’ motion in its entirety and awarded $15,000 in legal costs to Mr. Chsherbinin’s clients.
Injunction (stay of deportation). On May 29, 2015 (or 2 days before the scheduled deportation) the Federal Court granted a stay of Mr. Logachov’s removal from Canada to Ukraine. The court was persuaded that some of the CBSA Officer’s reasons were “incomprehensible” and that there is “a real probability that unavoidable, irreparable harm will result” if Mr. Logachov was removed.
Human Rights (discrimination based on disability). On May 5, 2015 the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal denied Co-ex-Tec’s application for an order dismissing the Applicant’s human rights complaint. In addition, the OHRT refused to defer the consideration of the Applicant’s application until the WSIAT appeal is concluded.
Judicial Review (H&C refusal). On January 21, 2015 the Federal Court set aside the Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s decision refusing the Trus family’s humanitarian & compassionate application. In light of the medical evidence, the CIC’s findings were unreasonable.
Judicial Review (alternatives to detention). 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 Ms. Berdzenadze’s identity was not yet determined. Justice Russell observed: “ 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.”
Judicial Review (can a person on ODSP 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 the application for becoming moot.
Judicial Review (Immigration Appeal Division’s refusal to hear an appeal). The Applicant was found ineligible to act as a sponsor. She appealed that decision to the Appeal Division, where Member Zanfir concluded that due to the Applicant’s ineligibility, the 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.
Appeal (spouse sponsorship refusal). On September 9, 2014 the Immigration Appeal Division overturned a Moscow-based visa officer’s decision refusing an outside-Canada spouse sponsorship application.
Motion (new evidence). 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 her to file evidence after the pleadings were closed.
Detention Review (organized criminality). Issue: should a person who is alleged to be a danger to the Canadian public and a flight risk be released from immigration detention 3 days before his admissibility hearing? As a result of vigorous submissions during April 11, 14, 15, 22, 29 and 30, 2014 hearings, Mr. Chsherbinin persuaded the Immigration Division that his client is neither a danger to the public nor a flight risk. Consequently, the Immigration Division released Mr. Gavashelishvili after 3 months of immigration detention and 3 days before his admissibility hearing. Curiously, at the outset of the May 7, 2014 admissibility hearing, the Minister withdrew all allegations.
Judicial Review (organized criminality). On April 11, 2014 Mr. Chsherbinin persuaded the Federal Court that the judicial review should be decided within 1 week. 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 reaffirms detainees’ right to sur-reply during detention reviews.
Judicial Review (organized criminality). On March 31, 2014 the Federal Court overturned the Immigration Division’s decision that continued Mr. Odosashvili’s immigration detention, because the court was persuaded that the Minister made “false submissions” and provided “inaccurate information in…the statutory declaration”. Significantly, this case clarifies detainees’ right to sur-reply during detention reviews.
Injunction (organized crimiality). Mr. Chsherbinin successfully resisted the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness’ injunction seeking to stay the Immigration Division’s decision that released Ms. Sidamonidze from the immigration detention. The Federal Court dismissed the Minister’s injunction on March 6, 2014.
Detention Review. 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.
Motion (non-union employee’s standing in a labour arbitration proceeding). On July 16, 2013 Mr. Chsherbinin successfully argued that a supervisor was entitled to the 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.
Appeal (citizenship refusal). On April 12, 2013 Mr. Chsherbinin prevailed in a highly contested appeal arising from the Citizenship Judge’s denial of Canadian citizenship to Ms. Korolove.
Mareva Injunction & Norwich Order (freezing of bank accounts). On November 27, 2012 Mr. Chsherbinin successfully obtained exceptional ordersfreezing the defendants’ banks accounts in Ontario and Canada-wide and requiring the Royal Bank of Canada to release the detailed records of financial transactions.
Judicial Review (stay of deportation). On July 26, 2012 the Federal Court decided the judicial review in Mr. Khodov’s favour. The decision of an enforcement officer not to defer his removal was quashed and remitted back for re-determination.
Injunction (stay of deportation). On November 16, 2011 Mr. Chsherbinin successfully persuaded the Federal Court that the Enforcement Officer erred in law when he refused to administratively defer Mr. Khodov’s removal from Canada.
Appeal (just cause dismissal). In this case, the Ontario Divisional Court upheld 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.
Motion (disclosure of privileged information). 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.
Appeal (revocation of permanent resident status). In this case, Mr. Chsherbinin successfully argued, before the Immigration Appeal Division, that a Moscow-based visa officer’s decision, which revoked Mr. Zvorygin’s permanent resident status due to his alleged failure to meet the residency obligation was not valid in law.
Trial (breach of contract). At trial, Mr. Chsherbinin successfully argued, on behalf of the Academy that the defendants fundamentally breached the contract for supply of educational services.