On April 14, 2022, the Ontario Superior Court granted bail to Mr. Vago's client, a participant in the "freedom convoy" occupation in Ottawa. Carr had been charged with mischief, obstructing police, and failure to obey a court order related to his activities during the convoy. The court's decision to grant bail followed a review of Carr's initial bail denial, recognizing a material change in circumstances and a substantially different plan for Carr's release. The Crown had conceded to the change in circumstances, notably the conclusion of the convoy occupation and the presentation of a stronger release plan than what was initially proposed. The court considered several factors, including the peaceful intent behind Carr's participation, the strong case against him, and the impactful testimony of proposed sureties, including a retired RCMP Sergeant and Carr's mother. Despite the serious nature of the offences and their significant impact on the city and its residents, Justice Maranger found that the tertiary ground for detention did not apply specifically to Carr. Justice Maranger concluded that Carr had met the onus of demonstrating his suitability for bail on all grounds, including the unlikely risk of reoffending and his compliance with court orders, underscored by stringent conditions including social media restrictions, communication bans with convoy organizers, and limited access to Ottawa. Carr's release was seen as a step towards balancing justice with the presumption of innocence, considering his role as a primary caregiver and his lack of criminal history.

David Vago's submissions that in a Humanitarian and Compassionate application, the PRRA Officer erred in relation to the hardship and best interests of the child analyses and the Honourable Judge Brown agreed. Firstly, the Officer placed too hugh a burden on the Applicants. Second, the Federal Court has repeatedly found that the test for assessing the adequacy of state protection is at the operational level which requires an assessment not only of the efforts by the state but the actual results achieved at the operational level. The PRRA decision was deemed unreasonable and the judicial review was granted.

David Vago's submissions that in a Humanitarian and Compassionate application, the PRRA Officer erred in relation to the hardship and best interests of the child analyses and the Honourable Judge Brown agreed. Firstly, the Officer placed too hugh a burden on the Applicants. Second, the Federal Court has repeatedly found that the test for assessing the adequacy of state protection is at the operational level which requires an assessment not only of the efforts by the state but the actual results achieved at the operational level. The PRRA decision was deemed unreasonable and the judicial review was granted.

The PRRA Officer made the following statement: Officer’s statement concerning the Applicant’s affidavit: "The affidavit is a statement and is not a document that holds probative value. David Vago argued that the PRRA Officer failed to understand the difference between an affidavit and a “mere” statement; diminished the evidentiary value of the affidavit by stating that it holds no probative value; and adopted an approach that is in direct conflict with the Federal Court of Appeal’s finding in Maldonado v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1979 CanLII 4098 (FCA), [1980] 2 FC 302 at para 5 (FCA) that sworn allegations by applicants are presumed to be true unless there are reasons to doubt their truthfulness. David Vago further argued that the Officer made no mention of doubting the truthfulness of the contents of the affidavit, such that it would warrant no probative value. The Honourable Madam Justice Rochester found that it was not open to the Court to speculate as to what the Officer might have been thinking by stating that the Affidavit was a statement and not a document that held probative value. It was difficult to discern an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis in the Officer’s treatment of the Applicant’s affidavit. Consequently, the The Hon Mr. Justice Henry S. Brown found that the Decision cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency.

David Vago's submissions that specific documents cited in the submissions were fundamental to the arguments made regarding country conditions and state protection, and would have contradicted the findings of the decision making Officer, the Officer’s failure to address the specific country condition evidence submitted renders the decision unreasonable. Further, Madam Justice Go agreed with David Vago's submissions that the PRRA Officer’s combined failure to consider the country condition evidence and the Gender Guidelines had a cascading effect on the way the Officer treated the evidence submitted by the Applicant with respect to her claim based on gender-based violence.

Man pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine after selling to an undercover police officer. Although the sentencing guidelines for offenders who sell up to an ounce of cocaine call for a sentence between 6 months and 2 years imprisonment, due to "exceptional circumstances", the client received a non-custodial sentence with probation. The sentencing hearing consisted of multiple days and required preparation and a flexible approach in introducing the case by providing for a novel area of the law concerning online gaming and gambling addiction.

David Vago's clients sought judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), which dismissed their appeal from a negative refugee determination by the RPD. The clients were a family of Hungarian citizens of Roma ethnicity - a husband, a wife, and their two minor children. The clients claimed that they had experienced several incidents of racially-motivated violence in Hungary, and that the children had been discriminated against in school ( they were segregated from non-Roma students ). On judicial review, the court found that the RAD's assessment of the children's claims disclosed a reviewable error. David Vago argued that the Refugee Appeal Division's reasoning on the children's claims demonstrated that the RAD did not actually analyze the issue before it. The court considered the sufficiency of the RAD's reasons. The RAD offered no explanation for its conclusion that the children's experiences did not amount to persecution, even though the issue was squarely argued in David Vago's appeal submissions, with extensive reference to the documentary record. The Federal Court found that the RAD's analysis was unreasonable; simply put, the RAD's reasons did not permit the court to understand why it decided the way it did. Therefore, the reasons were not transparent, intelligible or justified. The court also found that the RAD failed to engage with the documentary evidence, which contradicted its conclusions on the issue of adequate state protection. The court clarified that this was not to say that the decision was necessarily wrong with respect to state protection, only that there was a duty, given the inconsistent evidence, for the RAD to address David Vago's submissions. The court found that it was unreasonable for the RAD, when faced with David Vago's specific arguments that the RPD had ignored relevant evidence, to acknowledge that certain information before it supported the applicants' position, but failed to explain why it nevertheless upheld the RPD s analysis. The RAD's reasons demonstrated that it did not grapple with the substantive issue before it, and the court was unable to connect the dots. The RAD's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration by a differently constituted panel.

The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) allowed the appeal of a Hungarian Roma family, setting aside the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) 2016 decision that had denied them refugee protection. The RPD had found the appellants' claims of discrimination and harassment due to their ethnicity as lacking credibility, not amounting to persecution, and stated that there was adequate state protection in Hungary. However, the RAD disagreed, finding errors in the RPD's credibility assessment and its failure to engage with evidence contradicting its conclusion on state protection. The RAD recognized the cumulative discrimination faced by the appellants and concluded they did not have access to adequate state protection, thereby determining they are Convention refugees.

The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) of Canada allowed the appeal of David Vago's client, a Hungarian Roma woman, reversing an earlier decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) that had denied her refugee status. The RAD found that the RPD erred by not considering the cumulative discrimination she faced, including eviction, school segregation, and harassment, which amounted to persecution. Additionally, the RAD disagreed with the RPD's assessment of adequate state protection in Hungary, especially given the appellant's vulnerability and the operational ineffectiveness of protection measures for Roma individuals.