TB4-11786

TB4-11786

The RAD allowed the Minister's appeal because the RPD's reasons on exclusion were inadequate and prevented meaningful appellate review; under IRPA s111(1)(c) the RAD referred the matter back to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel; the RAD reaffirmed its appellate role and explained the scope of deference to RPD findings (deference where RPD had advantage, otherwise correctness), but concluded here the exclusion analysis was insufficient to permit confirmation or substitution.

Citation
TB4-11786
Parties
Appellant/minister: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Respondent/claimant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Immigration and Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Exclusion (article 1 F/section 98 Irpa), Sur Place, Credibility Findings, Role and Standard of Review of RAD, Referral for Redetermination, New Evidence Admissibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law International Human Rights Law Exclusion (article 1 F/section 98 Irpa) Sur Place Credibility Findings Role and Standard of Review of RAD +2 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Appellant/minister

XXXX XXXX

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Immigration and Refugee Appeal / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD adequately considered and analyzed exclusion under Articles 1F(a)-(c)/Section 98 IRPA
  2. 2 Appropriate role and degree of deference of the RAD in reviewing RPD decisions
  3. 3 Whether the RPD applied the correct legal test for sur place claims

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD allowed the Minister's appeal because the RPD's reasons on exclusion were inadequate and prevented meaningful appellate review; under IRPA s111(1)(c) the RAD referred the matter back to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel; the RAD reaffirmed its appellate role and explained the scope of deference to RPD findings (deference where RPD had advantage, otherwise correctness), but concluded here the exclusion analysis was insufficient to permit confirmation or substitution.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to s111(1)(c) of the IRPA