MB4-04520

MB4-04520

Procedural fairness was not respected at the RPD in the particular circumstances; the appellants' extensive evidence filed on appeal was inadmissible because they failed to satisfy s.110(4) IRPA requirements and did not request a RAD hearing; because credibility findings require hearing the evidence, the RAD cannot substitute its own findings and must set aside the RPD decision and remit the matter to a differently constituted RPD panel for re‑determination taking into account the record.

Citation
MB4-04520
Parties
Appellant Principal: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor Daughter: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Appellant Minor Son: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Allowed; RPD Decision Set Aside and Remitted to RPD for Re Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside; matter referred to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel
Legal Topics
Credibility, Admissibility of Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Remittal to First Instance, RAD Jurisdiction and Hearings
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Administrative Appeals Credibility Admissibility of Evidence Procedural Fairness Remittal to First Instance +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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Principal

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor Daughter

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant Minor Son

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (rad) Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Appeal Allowed; RPD Decision Set Aside and Remitted to RPD for Re Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD unreasonably undermined the claimants' credibility
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness was breached at the RPD hearing
  3. 3 Whether documents submitted on appeal meet the admissibility test in s.110(4) IRPA

Ratio Decidendi

Procedural fairness was not respected at the RPD in the particular circumstances; the appellants' extensive evidence filed on appeal was inadmissible because they failed to satisfy s.110(4) IRPA requirements and did not request a RAD hearing; because credibility findings require hearing the evidence, the RAD cannot substitute its own findings and must set aside the RPD decision and remit the matter to a differently constituted RPD panel for re‑determination taking into account the record.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; RPD determination set aside; matter referred to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • RPD determination set aside