TB5-10657

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Refugee Appeal Division Commission de l'immigration et du statut de réfugié du Canada Section d'appel des réfugiés RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-10657 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) the subject of the appeal XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(a.k.a. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) Personne(s) en cause Appeal considered / heard at Toronto, Ontario Appel instruit à Date of decision December 23, 2015 Date de la décision Panel M. Pettinella Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are)the subject of the appeal Conor Smith Barrister and Solicitor Conseil(s) du (de la/des) personne(s) en cause Designated Representative(s) N/A Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister Kamal Gill Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada (the Appellant) appeals a decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) accepting the claim for refugee protection made by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX(the Respondent). Neither the Appellant nor the Respondent has submitted new evidence and neither party requests an oral hearing. The Appellant asks the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) to set aside the determination of the RPD and find that the Respondent is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. DETERMINATION [2] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes its determination that the Respondent is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. This appeal is allowed. Background [3] The Respondent alleged before the RPD that, upon return to Singapore, he will be forced to complete his national service, even though he was granted an exemption on medical grounds. He further alleged that he will suffer discrimination because he did not complete his national service. [4] The Respondent's application for refugee protection was heard on May 4, 2015. By a decision of May 11, 2015, the RPD accepted the claim. The RPD found that the Respondent is a member of a particular social group and he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Singapore. It is further found that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming to the Respondent in Singapore and he does not have an internal flight alternative. [5] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred in its assessment of the evidence and in its analysis and findings. ANALYSIS Role of the RAD [6] What is the role of the RAD in considering an appeal against a decision of the RPD? Although the Appellant makes no argument with respect to this issue, the Respondent submits that appropriate standard of review for the RAD is articulated in the decision of the Federal Court in Alvarez.1 [7] Justice Shore stated the following in Alvarez: When analyzing a decision of the RPD, the RAD must not merely determine whether it was made in a reasonable manner, but, rather, analyze whether the RAD relied on a wrong principal of law or misassessed the facts to the point of making a palpable and overriding error. 2 [8] The RAD notes in Huruglica3 the Court considered the appropriate relationship between the RAD and the RPD. It found that the RAD had erred in simply reviewing the RPD's decision on a standard of reasonableness, rather than conducting its own independent assessment of the Appellants' refugee claims. The Court held that the RAD's application of a reasonableness standard curtailed the tribunal's appellate role, contrary to the purpose of the RAD and the provisions of the IRPA. In the Court's view, the RAD should not even engage in a standard of review analysis; rather, it should consider the purpose of the appellate tribunal, the statutory provisions, comparable expertise, and comparative appellate regimes.4 [9] Justice Phelan stated the following in Huruglica: Having concluded that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness, I have further concluded that for the reasons above, the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. It must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision.5 In conducting its assessment, it can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on facts only where there is an overriding and palpable error.6 [10] Considering the recent jurisprudence, including the Court's decision in Huruglica, the RAD will review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment of the Respondent's refugee claim, recognizing and respecting the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion. Where the RAD's assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD will substitute its own determination. Merits of the appeal State Protection Appellant's argument [11] The Appellant refers to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada indicating that a state is presumed to be capable of protecting its citizens barring a complete breakdown of the state apparatus.7 He also refers to a decision of the Federal Court of Appeal indicating that an applicant seeking to rebut the presumption of state protection must adduce relevant, reliable and convincing evidence which satisfies the trier of fact on a balance of probabilities that state protection is inadequate.8 [12] In his memorandum, the Appellant argues that the RPD failed to properly assess the objective evidence, including its own Response to Information Request (RIR) SGP105140.E, pointing towards adequate state protection. He refers to information in the RIR indicating that those who are not medically fit for national service in Singapore shall not be found fit for service. He also refers to information in the RIR indicating that medical exemptions are determined by an armed forces medical review board. The Appellant submits that it was the Military Review Board which granted the Respondent his exemption from national service, which, according to the RIR are only granted in exceedingly rare circumstances due to the wide range of service routes in the national service. [13] With respect to the Respondent's treatment while he was a military recruit, the Appellant notes that the documentary evidence before the RPD adequately addressed the issue of lodging complaints and seeking redress in cases where the recruit feels he or she is mistreated by another serviceman or superior. [14] The Appellant submits that the RPD erred by failing to assess and provide an analysis of whether the difficulties the Respondent faced with obtaining employment were due to his medical condition or his military exemption or his lack of qualifications. [15] The Appellant further submits that the RPD provided a very superficial analysis on state protection and failed to provide an analysis of why it accepted the Respondent's testimony over credible and reliable documentary evidence. He submits that the Respondent did not provide clear and convincing evidence that the state was unable to protect him. The Appellant argues that the state provided the Respondent with an exemption from military service; the only remedy that was available to him in his specific circumstances. He submits that the Respondent did not provide clear and convincing evidence regarding how he engaged the state with respect to his allegation of mistreatment as a recruit and discrimination in the workforce as a result of his exemption from military service. Respondent's argument [16] The Respondent submits that the agent of persecution in this case is the state. He notes that the RPD found that the Singaporean state was both active and complicit in persecuting him. He further notes that, based on the evidence before it, the RPD concluded that requiring him to seek protection from the military, who is the agent of persecution, would put his life at risk. He argues that, given that protection would not be reasonably forthcoming from the military, requiring him to put his life at risk by seeking protection from the military would be totally unreasonable. [17] The Respondent notes that the RPD concluded, on the basis of the evidence that the state is the agent of persecution, that state protection would not be reasonably forthcoming. He submits that the evidence before the RPD was clear that he would have to seek military justice as a means of protection. He further submits that the evidence before the RPD indicates that he could be disciplined for making an accusation against the agent of persecution if the agent of persecution determined that the accusation being made against it was false. The Respondent argues that military justice is all that would be available to him with respect to all but one of the grounds of cumulative persecution: the threat of re-entry to or re-examination for national service, threats of forced re-entry to national service by commanding officers, being forced to remain in a state of psychological and physical terror, and the threat of an inherently persecutory jail sentence. [18] With respect to his inability to find work or maintain a livelihood, the Respondent notes that the RPD found that it would be objectively unreasonable for him to seek protection from the State. He further notes that all of the grounds of cumulative persecution found by the RPD relate to the post-exemption period. He notes that he was provided with an exemption that is revocable at any time by the proper authority and it is the revocable exemption that is the basis of his well-founded fear of persecution. He further notes that the established well-founded fear of persecution in grounded in post-exemption threats. The Respondent argues that the revocable exemption cannot be adequate state protection. [19] The Respondent submits that, not only did the RPD provide an explanation as to why it accepted his testimony, the documentary evidence overwhelmingly supports his allegations. He further submits that the evidence also demonstrates that as the agent of persecution is the state, protection would not reasonably be forthcoming to him should he seek it. The Respondent submits that on a balance of probabilities he established by way of clear and convincing evidence that is both relevant and reliable, that state protection would not be forthcoming or would not be adequate. RAD assessment [20] The Federal Court has held that a contextual approach is required when assessing the availability of state protection and whether a claimant has rebutted the presumption of state protection.9 The Court also held that the Board should take into consideration the personal situation of the claimant, the particular risk alleged, the agent of persecution, and the country conditions.10 The RAD utilized a contextual approach when it conducted an independent assessment of the Respondent's refugee claim. [21] Following a review and analysis of the evidence in the record, including the recording of the RPD hearing, the RAD determines that the Respondent has failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence. States are presumed to be capable of protecting their citizens, except in situations where the state is in a state of complete breakdown.11 The evidence before the Board indicates that Singapore is a functioning parliamentary republic. The 2011 general and presidential elections were viewed as open and free, with the major opposition party winning a record six seats in Parliament.12 The presumption that a state is capable of protecting its citizens underscores the principle that international protection comes into play only when a refugee claimant has no other recourse available.13 The Respondent argues that the context of this claim is that the agent of persecution is the state and therefore this claim is distinguishable from the facts in Ward. The RAD notes that the presumption of state protection applies equally to cases where the state is alleged to be a persecutor.14 [22] The Respondent alleged before the RPD that he will be forced to complete his national service in Singapore, where he risks harm, even though he has received an exemption from national service. [23] With respect to the Respondent's obligations for national service in Singapore, the RAD notes the following. According to section 10 of Singapore's Enlistment Act, the proper authority may by notice require a person subject to this Act not below the age of 18 years to report for enlistment for national service.15 Section 28 of the Act states that the proper authority may by notice postpone such period as it may consider appropriate all or any part of the liability of any person under this act.16 In 2010 the Respondent was enrolled at the XXXX College XXXX XXXX XXXX and he continued his studies at the college until XXXX 2013.17 The Respondent testified that his obligation to enlist for national service in 2010, when he turned 18, was postponed due to his continuing enrollment in school. This suggests that the authorities in Singapore adequately applied the provisions of the Enlistment Act to the Respondent's situation. [24] According to the Respondent's Basis of Claim Form (BoC) narrative, in XXXX or XXXX 2013 he received notice from the Singapore Armed Forces to report for a medical examination in preparation for his compulsory military service. Subsection 10(4) of the Enlistment Act indicates that no duty of any kind shall be imposed on a person required to report for enlistment or service unless he is found fit for service.18 At his medical examination with the military, the Respondent informed the doctor that he had been diagnosed with XXXX and suffered from other ailments. An x-ray was performed on the Respondent and approximately two weeks later he received a letter indicating that he was fit for full combat and was to report for compulsory military service in XXXX 2013. The RAD finds that the authorities in Singapore reasonably applied the provisions of the Enlistment Act in the Respondent's circumstances. It would be reasonable to assume that the doctor assessing the Respondent's fitness for duty considered the Respondent's self-reported condition and the results of the x-ray and any other medical documentation that was before him before concluding that that Respondent was fit for enlistment and service. [25] The Respondent maintains that the physical training that he endured as a recruit was extremely intense. He also asserts that some of the exercises were life threatening. The Respondent alleges that his national service training exacerbated his physical ailments and caused him psychological distress. He further alleges that the military officers he reported his problems to did nothing to help him and caused him further injury. When he was eligible for leave, the Respondent sought medical care outside of the military. He provided the medical evidence he obtained to the military. He was examined by military health professionals such as a XXXX specialist and a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist certified that the Respondent was not fit for duty. In XXXX 2014 the Respondent received a letter from the Singapore Armed Forces exempting him from service. [26] The Enlistment Regulations contain provisions for those who experience deterioration in health. According to regulation 12, an examinee who has been found fit for service shall forthwith inform the Medical Officer, Central Manpower Base, of any disease, infirmity or injury having effect on his medical fitness contracted or sustained after being found fit for service.19 Regulation 13 indicates that the proper authority shall release any national serviceman or regular serviceman who is found unfit for service.20 Also indicated in regulation 13 is that the proper authority shall act upon the advice of a medical board consisting of 3 registered medical practitioners nominated by the Director of Manpower. The Respondent's evidence is clear that he was afforded the appropriate remedy for his medical incapacity once it was properly before the authority. Even though the Respondent alleges that his medical information was before the authority from the beginning and he was hampered in his ability to provide the authority with further medical evidence, the RAD finds that it is not unreasonable for a medical entity to disagree with the findings of other medical entities or require further medical evidence to corroborate an illness or injury. The Respondent was given various periods of medical leave while the authority reviewed his medical situation. [27] The Respondent commenced his national service training on or about XXXX XXXX, 2013. On XXXX XXXX, 2014 he was given leave to attend an appointment with a podiatrist. Starting on XXXX XXXX, 2014, the Respondent was given a number of medical certificates granting him medical leave. He was issued an exemption from national service on XXXX XXXX, 2014. The Respondent did not even complete two months of his national service training before he was found unfit for duty and subsequently granted an exemption from national service. Considering the Respondent's particular circumstances, the RAD finds that the Singaporean authorities acted reasonably and expeditiously in dealing with the Respondent's medical issues leading to his incapacity to perform national service. Documentary evidence indicates that, given the visibility of national service in Singapore, the safety of conscripts is taken seriously and failures often receive considerable public scrutiny.21 [28] With respect to similarly situated individuals, the RAD notes the following. A recruit diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome was exempted from national service after he had already served one year of service under a PES E medical rating, a medical status which meant he was fit for administrative duties. During his year of service, the recruit had allegedly been bullied and mistreated by superiors and peers, and following a complaint to the military filed by his parents, he was assessed by a medical review board and given a PES F status, exempting him from national service.22 This evidence demonstrates that the measures Singapore has in place for addressing the physical or mental incapacity of national service members and the mistreatment of national service members by others in the military is very effective. [29] The Respondent maintains that his exemption from national service is not permanent. The RAD disagrees. The following is an excerpt from the letter sent to the Respondent regarding his exemption. You are hereby notified that under Section 29 of the Enlistment Act (Cap.93) you are exempted from: Full Time National Service Operationally Ready National Service Duty To Obtain An Exit Permit This exemption shall take effect from 28 May 14 and shall apply unless subsequently revoked by the Proper Authority and when deemed fit.23 [30] The wording that the exemption "shall apply" suggests that the exemption is permanent. The indication "unless subsequently revoked by the Proper Authority and when deemed fit" suggests that a revocation is possible; however, it does not render the exemption temporary or non-permanent. Section 29 of the Enlistment Act indicates that the proper authority may by notice exempt any person from all or any part of the liability of that person under this Act. Since the Respondent received a total exemption (full time national service, operationally ready national service and duty to obtain an exit permit) it is reasonable to conclude that the exemption is all inclusive and permanent. Even if the Respondent's psychological condition improves, his XXXX is a permanent condition. The RAD finds that it is more likely than not that the Respondent's exemption from national service in Singapore is permanent. [31] The Respondent maintains that he was persecuted by the officers of his platoon while he was in national service training because they made him complete training exercises that he believed he was incapable of performing or were dangerous, they ridiculed him for complaining about exercises or not completing exercises, they forced him and others to do extra exercises because he was lagging behind in exercises, and they refused to allow him to seek medical attention on occasion. The RAD can only speculate about the reasonableness of the treatment the Respondent received by officers in his platoon while he was in training since there are no detailed reports of the expectations and results of the Respondent's performance in national service training. The Respondent's service transcript from the Singapore Armed Forces indicates that his performance was satisfactory and his conduct was satisfactory.24 Nonetheless, considering that the Respondent was given medical clearance for full combat prior to the start of his training, it is reasonable to expect his military superiors to do everything possible to push him to his physical and mental limits. When it was determined that he was unfit for duty, he was given medical leave and later exempted from national service. These measures ensured that the Respondent did not further aggravate his physiological or psychological condition. [32] The Respondent alleged before the RPD that military officers harassed him after he received his exemption. He maintains that he and his father received text messages and telephone calls from officers alluding to his return to national service. The RAD notes that the Respondent's official obligations for national service were relayed to him in writing. The Respondent indicates in his BoC narrative that in XXXX or XXXX 2013 he received notice from the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) that he was to report for a medical examination in preparation for his compulsory military service. He indicates that he received a letter from the SAF that he was medically fit for full combat and was to report for his compulsory medical service in XXXX 2013. He indicates that, at the end of XXXX 2014, he received a letter from the SAF exempting him from service. The RAD finds on a balance of probabilities that if the SAF was reconsidering his exemption the Respondent would have been officially notified in writing. [33] The Respondent indicated that he did not file a complaint against the officers who harassed him with vexatious text messages and telephone calls after he was exempted from national service. He argues that military justice is all that would be available to him with respect to all but one of the grounds of cumulative persecution: the threat of re-entry to or re-examination for national service, threats of forced re-entry to national service by commanding officers, being forced to remain in a state of psychological and physical terror, and the threat of an inherently persecutory jail sentence. The RAD disagrees with the Respondent. Although documentary evidence indicates that servicemen are not permitted to seek redress outside the Ministry of Defence and are prohibited from taking up issues concerning the SAF or SAF personnel to any party outside the SAF,25 the RAD notes that the Respondent is a civilian. Since he is no longer a serviceman, the Respondent is entitled to redress with the civilian authorities. Documentary evidence indicates that civilian authorities maintained effective control over the police forces and the armed forces, and the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau had effective mechanisms to investigate and punish abuse and corruption.26 The evidence is clear that Singapore has effective mechanisms in place to address abuse and corruption in the police forces and the armed forces if the Respondent were to encounter any problems and report them. [34] With respect to his inability to find work or maintain a livelihood, the Respondent notes that the RPD found that it would be objectively unreasonable for him to seek protection from the State. The RAD does not concur with the RPD finding. [35] The Respondent alleges that in the months after his exemption from national service he applied for approximately 70 jobs and received one job offer. He alleges that after six weeks on the job with a British firm, when a background check was completed on him, he was asked to tender his resignation. [36] The RAD notes that the Respondent remained in Singapore (except for brief trips to Malaysia and Indonesia) for approximately eight months after he received his exemption from national service. Besides a brief period of self-employment as a XXXX in 2013 and approximately two months of training in the national service, he had never been employed in the private or public sector prior to receiving his exemption from national service. The Respondent has noted physical and psychological impairment. The RAD can only speculate as to the reason the Respondent was unable to obtain continuing employment after he received his exemption from national service as the evidence on this issue is not clear; however, considering his background and profile, it is not unreasonable that he did not secure employment in the short time after receiving his exemption and leaving the country. [37] The RAD finds that there is adequate protection available to the Respondent in Singapore with respect to employment and healthcare. The Respondent provided documented evidence of his physiological and psychological impairments.27 A clinical psychologist indicates that the Respondent suffers from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety and depression. She also indicates that the Respondent had a pre-existing condition of scoliosis prior to starting military service and he shows degeneration and dislocation of spinal discs after being in military service.28 The RAD notes that National Health Plan in Singapore provides for affordable healthcare to all Singaporeans.29 No credible evidence was presented to indicate that the Respondent was deprived medical treatment for any of his ailments in Singapore and as such there is no reason to believe that he would not be entitled to it if he returns. [38] Also, it is important to note that one of the key values underpinning Singapore's Mental Health Blueprint is that the mentally ill should not be discriminated against.30 The Job Club is a one-stop vocational rehabilitee service that helps people with mental illness to find jobs. Launched in 2009, it seeks to reintegrate individuals back into society by helping them acquire the necessary job skills and networking with employers to ensure adequate training and job opportunities. Job Club is run by occupational therapists, medical social workers and job placement officers.31 The Job Club notes success with clients. [39] The Respondent maintains that he cannot obtain employment in Singapore because he was exempted from national service. The RAD disagrees. Documentary evidence indicates that only those with quite significant disabilities are fully exempted from national service (PES F). The same document indicates that having a PES F should not (legally at least) prevent someone from obtaining employment that they are qualified for and have the capacity to complete and the same goes for education and obtaining government services.32 Considering that the Respondent is fully exempted from national service and he has access to government programs such as Job Club to help him obtain employment, the RAD finds that the Respondent has adequate employment protection in Singapore. [40] The Respondent argues that his revocable exemption cannot be adequate state protection. The RAD has found that the Respondent's exemption from national service is permanent. He was provided with due process when he presented medical evidence to support his disabilities and unfitness for duty. A panel found that his medical evidence supported an exemption. If Singapore were to consider revoking the Respondent's exemption, the Respondent would be entitled to due process once again. If the Respondent encountered abuse or corruption in the revocation, effective mechanisms are in place to address this as noted above. [41] Having considered the totality of the evidence and conducting a contextual analysis, the RAD finds that the Respondent, in the circumstances of this case, has failed to rebut the presumption of state protection with clear and convincing evidence. The RAD is not persuaded on a balance of probabilities that the state of Singapore would not be reasonably forthcoming with adequate state protection, should the Respondent seek it. The RAD concurs with the Appellant that the RPD erred in its assessment of the evidence and in its analysis and findings, with respect to state protection. It is not necessary for the RAD to review the RPD's findings with respect to membership in a particular social group or discrimination versus persecution since state protection is the determinative issue in the Respondent's claim and the finding on state protection satisfies both sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA. For the reasons above, the RAD finds that the Respondent is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, whether under section 96 or section 97 of the IRPA, as state protection is available to him. CONCLUSION [42] Pursuant to Section 111(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), the RAD sets aside the determination of the RPD and substitutes its determination that the Respondent is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. This appeal is allowed. (signed) "M. Pettinella" M. Pettinella December 23, 2015 Date 1 Alvarez, Ismael Garcia v.M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-7218-13), Shore, July 17, 2014, 2014 FC 702. 2 Alvarez, para. 28. 3 Huruglica, Bujar v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-6362-13), Phelan, August 22, 2014; 2014 FC 799. 4 Huruglica, para. 45. 5 Huruglica, para 54. 6 Huruglica, para 55. 7 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at 725. 8 Flores Carrillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 (F.C.A.), para. 30. 9 Garcia, Debora De Araujo v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5987-05), Campbell, January 24, 2007, 2007 FC 79. Reported: Garcia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 4 F.C.R. 385 (F.C.); Ortega, Lucia Avila v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-2183-09), Zinn, October 16, 2009, 2009 FC 1057. 10 Quevedo, Rodolfo Manuel Torres Rico v. M.C.I. (F.C. No. IMM-7097-05), de Montigny, October 25, 2006; 2006 FC 1264. 11 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at 725. 12 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 548. 13 Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at 709. 14 Hinzman, Jeremy v. M.C.I. and Hughey, Brandon David v. M.C.I. (F.C.A., nos. A-182-06; A-185-06), Décary, Sexton, Evans, April 30, 2007; 2007 FCA 171, para. 54. 15 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 392. 16 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 401. 17 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 46. 18 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 392. 19 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 415. 20 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 415. 21 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 57. 22 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 59. 23 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 352. 24 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 351. 25 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 7, para 21. 26 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 551. 27 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 299-350. 28 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at pp. 307. 29 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 176. 30 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 189. 31 Exhibit RPD-1, RPD's Record, at p. 201. 32 Exhibit P-2, Appellant's Record, at p. 60. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : TB5-10657