TB3-03827

TB3-03827

The RAD held the RPD unreasonably excluded a material family planning booklet and prevented the wife from testifying, resulting in denial of natural justice; because that evidence was material to credibility and the central issues, the matter must be referred to a differently constituted RPD panel for re-determination with directions to admit the booklet and allow the wife's testimony, while recognizing deference to RPD fact findings is generally appropriate under a reasonableness standard.

Citation
TB3-03827
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX; Minor Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (irpa) / RAD Decision Referring Matter to RPD for Re Determination Under S.111(1)(c)
Outcome
Referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) for re-determination
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Natural Justice, Credibility Findings, Standard of Review, Family Planning Policy (china)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Law Admissibility of Evidence Natural Justice Credibility Findings Standard of Review +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Minor Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (irpa) / RAD Decision Referring Matter to RPD for Re Determination Under S.111(1)(c)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documentary evidence and the wife's testimony should have been admitted despite late filing and non-compliance with RPD rules
  2. 2 Whether the RPD made unreasonable/erroneous credibility findings
  3. 3 Whether the actions likely experienced by the appellants were pursuant to a law of general application such that they do not ground protection claims

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD held the RPD unreasonably excluded a material family planning booklet and prevented the wife from testifying, resulting in denial of natural justice; because that evidence was material to credibility and the central issues, the matter must be referred to a differently constituted RPD panel for re-determination with directions to admit the booklet and allow the wife's testimony, while recognizing deference to RPD fact findings is generally appropriate under a reasonableness standard.

Court Disposition

Referred to the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) for re-determination

Orders

  • Refer matter to RPD for re-determination under IRPA s.111(1)(c)
  • RPD panel to be differently constituted