TB4-02941

TB4-02941

The RAD found the RPD's exclusion decision under article 1F(a) unreasonable because the RPD failed to demonstrate with specific evidence that the principal appellant voluntarily made a significant and knowing contribution to the BNP's crimes; the Minister did not meet its onus. Therefore the appeals are allowed and the matter is remitted to the RPD for re-determination by a differently‑constituted panel, including reconsideration of the female appellant's claim.

Citation
TB4-02941
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Female Appellant: XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal (exclusion Under Article 1 F(a)) / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Remitted to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeals allowed; matter referred to RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to section 111(1)(c) of IRPA
Legal Topics
Exclusion Under Article 1 F(a), Complicity, Crimes Against Humanity, Standard of Review, Credibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Criminal Law Exclusion Under Article 1 F(a) Complicity Crimes Against Humanity Standard of Review Credibility

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX

Female Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal (exclusion Under Article 1 F(a)) / Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division; Remitted to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) committed crimes against humanity
  2. 2 Whether the principal appellant is complicit in those crimes under article 1F(a) of the Refugee Convention
  3. 3 Whether the RPD properly applied the Ezokola test for complicity

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found the RPD's exclusion decision under article 1F(a) unreasonable because the RPD failed to demonstrate with specific evidence that the principal appellant voluntarily made a significant and knowing contribution to the BNP's crimes; the Minister did not meet its onus. Therefore the appeals are allowed and the matter is remitted to the RPD for re-determination by a differently‑constituted panel, including reconsideration of the female appellant's claim.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; matter referred to RPD for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel pursuant to section 111(1)(c) of IRPA

Orders

  • Appeals allowed
  • Matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently-constituted panel