TB5-01496

TB5-01496

The RAD found that certain statements in the RPD decision amounted to stereotypical, victim‑blaming commentary that would lead a reasonable, informed person to apprehend bias and thus breached natural justice; the RAD admitted the six new country‑condition articles (all dated after the RPD decision) under s.110(4) IRPA and, pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA, allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel.

Citation
TB5-01496
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Co Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by RAD Referring Matter to RPD for Re Determination by Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Natural Justice, Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa), Credibility Findings, Persecution Analysis, State Protection, Standard of Appellate Review by RAD
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Judicial Review/appeal Standards Reasonable Apprehension of Bias Natural Justice Admissibility of New Evidence (s.110(4) Irpa) Credibility Findings +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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Co Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision by RAD Referring Matter to RPD for Re Determination by Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RAD should admit new evidence filed after the RPD decision under s.110(4) IRPA
  2. 2 Whether the RPD decision demonstrates a reasonable apprehension of bias amounting to a breach of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the RPD erred in credibility, persecution and state protection findings

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found that certain statements in the RPD decision amounted to stereotypical, victim‑blaming commentary that would lead a reasonable, informed person to apprehend bias and thus breached natural justice; the RAD admitted the six new country‑condition articles (all dated after the RPD decision) under s.110(4) IRPA and, pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA, allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Refer matter to the Refugee Protection Division for re‑determination by a differently‑constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA