MB5-03736

MB5-03736

The RAD concluded the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to identify and put to the claimant the specific concerns central to credibility (contradictions and documentary issues) and by not allowing adequate opportunity to explain; that breach was material such that the RPD determination was set aside and the claim was referred to a differently constituted RPD panel for re-determination.

Citation
MB5-03736
Parties
Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal: XXXX XXXX; Adjudicator (rad Member Issuing Reasons): Me Alain Bissonnette
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (rad Appeal of RPD Decision) / Appeal Allowed and Matter Referred to a Differently Constituted RPD Panel for Re Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and matter referred to a differently constituted RPD panel for re-determination of the refugee protection claim.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Hearing on Appeal (s.110(6) Irpa), Judicial Deference and Independent Assessment, Referral for Re Determination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Credibility Assessment Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Hearing on Appeal (s.110(6) Irpa) Judicial Deference and Independent Assessment +1 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Appellant / Person Who Is the Subject of the Appeal

Me Alain Bissonnette

Adjudicator (rad Member Issuing Reasons)

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (rad Appeal of RPD Decision) / Appeal Allowed and Matter Referred to a Differently Constituted RPD Panel for Re Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD observed principles of procedural fairness in its credibility findings
  2. 2 Whether documents proffered on appeal constitute new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA and are admissible
  3. 3 Whether the RAD should hold a hearing under s.110(6) IRPA based on admissible new evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD concluded the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to identify and put to the claimant the specific concerns central to credibility (contradictions and documentary issues) and by not allowing adequate opportunity to explain; that breach was material such that the RPD determination was set aside and the claim was referred to a differently constituted RPD panel for re-determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside and matter referred to a differently constituted RPD panel for re-determination of the refugee protection claim.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • RPD determination set aside.