MB5-00462

MB5-00462

On a de novo assessment the RAD found documentary and testimonial evidence establish serious reasons to consider the principal appellant voluntarily made a significant and knowing contribution (including wilful blindness) to systemic torture under the Ben Ali regime and is therefore excluded under Article 1F(a); however the principal appellant's spouse and children established a well‑founded fear of persecution and have no reasonable internal flight alternative (Jendouba or Sfax) given up‑to‑date country evidence, so their appeals succeed and they are refugees under section 96 IRPA.

Citation
MB5-00462
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Spouse: XXXX XXXX; Appellant Child: XXXX XXXX; Intervenor: Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Decision Maker (rad Panel): Me Alain Bissonnette
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (rad) Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (de Novo Assessment by Rad)
Outcome
Principal appellant's appeal dismissed and exclusion under Article 1F(a) confirmed; appeals allowed for spouse and children and their refugee determinations substituted in their favour.
Legal Topics
Article 1 F Exclusion, Complicity in Crimes Against Humanity, Wilful Blindness, Internal Flight Alternative (ifa), Admissibility of Fresh Evidence S.110(4) IRPA, Right to Hearing S.110(6) IRPA
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law International Criminal Law Administrative Law Human Rights Article 1 F Exclusion Complicity in Crimes Against Humanity Wilful Blindness +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Spouse

XXXX XXXX

Appellant Child

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness

Intervenor

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

Me Alain Bissonnette

Decision Maker (rad Panel)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (rad) Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal (de Novo Assessment by Rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principal appellant is excluded from refugee protection under Article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention for complicity in crimes against humanity
  2. 2 Whether the principal appellant's contribution was voluntary, significant and made with knowledge (or wilful blindness)
  3. 3 Whether the RPD's proposed internal flight alternatives (Jendouba or Sfax) were reasonable for the spouse and children

Ratio Decidendi

On a de novo assessment the RAD found documentary and testimonial evidence establish serious reasons to consider the principal appellant voluntarily made a significant and knowing contribution (including wilful blindness) to systemic torture under the Ben Ali regime and is therefore excluded under Article 1F(a); however the principal appellant's spouse and children established a well‑founded fear of persecution and have no reasonable internal flight alternative (Jendouba or Sfax) given up‑to‑date country evidence, so their appeals succeed and they are refugees under section 96 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Principal appellant's appeal dismissed and exclusion under Article 1F(a) confirmed; appeals allowed for spouse and children and their refugee determinations substituted in their favour.

Orders

  • Confirm RPD determination excluding principal appellant under Article 1F(a) and dismiss his appeal
  • Allow appeals of the principal appellant's wife and children, set aside RPD determinations and substitute that they are refugees under section 96 of the IRPA