The Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the case of two Moroccans who accused the Quebec government of discrimination in its handling of immigration applications from the North African country. As is usually the case, the high court did not give reasons for its decision.
Khadija Goumbarak and Mohamed Tayouri filed applications for a Québec selection certificate in the class subject to the list of occupations in demand. Between the time they filed their applications and the time those applications were considered, the list was amended, and the occupations for which they were allegedly qualified were withdrawn from the list. Their applications were rejected because they also could not meet the requirements in the “employability and occupational mobility” class. Goumbarak and Tayouri filed a motion for declaratory judgment to quash the decision of the Quebec Minister of Relations with Citizens and Immigration on the grounds that they had, inter alia, acquired rights at the time they filed their applications and were the victims of discrimination on the basis of their Moroccan citizenship. The Superior Court dismissed the motion. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Trial judges considering a Crown’s request to apply an order that requires an offender to comply with the Sex Offender Information Registration Act(“SOIRA”) should consider on a case-by-case basis the impact registration would have on the offender while weighing public interest to determine gross disproportionality, the Quebec Court of Appeal found in a ruling that steers away from a more rigid interpretation of reporting obligations.
In a 32-page ruling, dealing with four concurrent cases that challenged the constitutionality of s.490 of the Criminal Code, the court held that a stiff interpretation of what constitutes public interest would be unfair as it would be almost impossible for a convicted sex offender to establish that, if the order were made, the impact on them (including their privacy or liberty) would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society.
An exiled Senegalese journalist, now residing in Montreal, has been ordered to pay the son of the president of the Republic of Senegal $125,000 for defaming him in a blog widely republished by African media outlets.
In a blog run by the well-respected French-based publication Nouvel Observateur, Souleymane Jules Diop portrayed Karim Meïssa Wade, in a series of postings that were published between July and November 2005, as a criminal who appropriated or diverted public funds, was involved in money-laundering, and resorted to threats and physical intimidation.
The Quebec government has wide discretionary powers to issue selection certificates to foreign nationals seeking to settle permanently in the province, according to two rulings issued concurrently in related matters by the Quebec Court of Appeal.
A legal battle pitting a Brazilian aspiring model against a wealthy Montreal businessman may have all the ingredients of a riveting soap opera but at stake lies a constitutional challenge that strikes at the heart over the financial duties of common-law partners in Quebec.
The 35-year-old woman, who mothered three of the man’s children, is challenging the law that mandates spousal payments for couples who only have been legally married. Before Quebec Superior Court, she is seeking $56,000 in alimony and a share of his wealth. The identities of the protagonists are protected by the court, as is the case in Quebec when family law cases involve children. Continue reading “Alimony rights for common-law spouses at stake in wealthy couple’s battle”