# Canadian Refugee Procedure/72-75 - Judicial Review
## IRPA Sections 72-75

Sections 72-75 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act read:

### Section 72(1): Judicial review is commenced by making an application for leave to the Court

Section 72(1) provides that judicial review by the Federal Court is commenced by making an application for leave to the Court. Historically, leave has been granted in about 16.8 per cent of cases, with 46.2 per cent of judicial reviews succeeding from among those granted leave.

### Section 74(d): An appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal may be made only if the judge certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved

Section 74(d) of the IRPA provides that, subject to section 87.01, an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal may be made only if, in rendering judgment, the judge certifies that a serious question of general importance is involved and states the question. To be certified, a question must be a serious one that: (i) is dispositive of the appeal; (ii) transcends the interests of the immediate parties to the litigation; and (iii) contemplates issues of broad significance or general importance. As a corollary, the question must also have been raised and dealt with by the court below and it must arise from the case, not from the Judge’s reasons. Furthermore, the question must not have already been determined and settled in another appeal.
The Federal Court of Appeal has entertained an appeal without a certified question, where the issue on appeal involved the jurisdiction of the Federal Court judge or an allegation of bias. As stated in Canada v. Aziz:
   The Minister argues that in this case no certified question is required. He relies on a number of immigration cases in which this Court has permitted an appeal to proceed despite the absence of a certified question. For example, in Forde v. Canada, the Court entertained an appeal from a Federal Court order staying a deportation pending the disposition of another immigration case. The Court concluded that no certified question was required because issue was whether the stay order was within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court under paragraph 50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7. In Subhaschanddran v. Canada, the Court entertained an appeal from a Federal Court order that it construed as a refusal of a judge to grant or dismiss a motion to stay a deportation. This Court has also held that no certified question is required to appeal an order on a motion for recusal based on an allegation of bias, because such an allegation goes to the jurisdiction of a judge to adjudicate the case: see, Narvey v. M.C.I. and Re Zündel. [internal citations omitted]
This is on the basis that paragraph 27(1)(c) of the Federal Courts Act authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Federal Court in limited circumstances.

## References

* ↑ Colin Grey, Canada’s contemporary asylum system, in Ervis Martani and Denise Helly, Asylum and resettlement in Canada, Genova University Press, <https://gup.unige.it/sites/gup.unige.it/files/pagine/Asylum_and_resettlement_in_Canada_ebook.pdf>, page 88.
* ↑ Medina Rodriguez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 401 (CanLII), at para 46, <https://canlii.ca/t/k3b91#par46>, retrieved on 2024-05-18.
* ↑ Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FCA 168.
* ↑ Rrotaj v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FCA 292 at para 6.
* ↑ Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Aziz, 2011 FCA 18.
* ↑ Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Ewen, 2023 FCA 225 (CanLII), at para 16, <https://canlii.ca/t/k165v#par16>, retrieved on 2023-11-20.