MC0-08164

MC0-08164

The RAD admitted the post‑decision medical report diagnosing traumatic brain injury as new, credible and relevant under s.110(4) IRPA and concluded on a balance of probabilities that the TBI could explain the RPD's identified inconsistencies; therefore the RPD's adverse credibility findings were incorrect and the matter must be referred to a differently constituted RPD for re‑determination.

Citation
MC0-08164
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Associate Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred to a differently constituted Refugee Protection Division panel for re‑determination.
Legal Topics
Credibility Assessment, New Evidence Admissibility Under S.110(4) IRPA, Medical Evidence (traumatic Brain Injury), Referral for Redetermination
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Credibility Assessment New Evidence Admissibility Under S.110(4) IRPA Medical Evidence (traumatic Brain Injury) Referral for Redetermination

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Associate Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under IRPA / Decision on Appeal by Refugee Appeal Division (rad)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Refugee Protection Division erred in its credibility assessment
  2. 2 Whether the medical report dated post‑decision is admissible under s.110(4) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's traumatic brain injury could explain inconsistencies in testimony

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD admitted the post‑decision medical report diagnosing traumatic brain injury as new, credible and relevant under s.110(4) IRPA and concluded on a balance of probabilities that the TBI could explain the RPD's identified inconsistencies; therefore the RPD's adverse credibility findings were incorrect and the matter must be referred to a differently constituted RPD for re‑determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred to a differently constituted Refugee Protection Division panel for re‑determination.

Orders

  • Medical report dated XXXX XXXX XXXX 2020 admitted under s.110(4) IRPA
  • Appeal allowed and file referred to a differently constituted RPD for re‑determination