Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Palliyaralalage v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court accepted the parties' agreement that the RAD breached procedural fairness by making new credibility findings without notice or an opportunity to respond; accordingly the RAD decision dated February 25, 2020 was set aside and the matter remitted to the RAD for redetermination by a different panel; no costs were awarded.

Court disposition

RAD decision dated February 25, 2020 set aside; matter remitted to the Refugee Appeal Division for redetermination by a different panel; no costs.

Orders

  • The decision of the Refugee Appeal Division dated February 25, 2020 is set aside.
  • The matter is returned for redetermination by a different Refugee Appeal Division panel than heard either of the previous appeals related to this Applicant.
  • No costs are awarded to either party.

02

Material facts

Parties

Dinesh Newmal Palliyaralalage

Applicant Counsel: Osasenaga Obazee

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent Counsel: Erin Estok

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Judicial Review (immigration/refugee) / Consent Motion to Set Aside RAD Decision and Remit for Redetermination

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant maintained that the RAD breached procedural fairness by making new credibility findings without providing notice and an opportunity to respond and sought the RAD decision set aside and remitted.
Respondent
Respondent conceded the RAD committed an error of natural justice and agreed on consent to set aside the RAD decision and remit the matter for redetermination, with no costs.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Palliyaralalage v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 596; Ojarikre v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 896; Husian v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 684

    Duty of procedural fairness requires notice and an opportunity to respond when an administrative tribunal makes new adverse credibility findings

  2. 02

    Garshowitz v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 251

    Federal Court may set aside and remit a decision where an administrative body applied an unreasonable view of the law or breached natural justice

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court accepted the parties' agreement that the RAD breached procedural fairness by making new credibility findings without notice or an opportunity to respond; accordingly the RAD decision dated February 25, 2020 was set aside and the matter remitted to the RAD for redetermination by a different panel; no costs were awarded.

Obiter and limits

  • Court noted prior Federal Court decision setting aside an earlier RAD decision for similar procedural fairness breach
  • Court applied Garshowitz in accepting parties' consent on the appropriate remedy
  • Court specified the remand should be to a different RAD panel than those that heard the prior appeals

Court disposition

RAD decision dated February 25, 2020 set aside; matter remitted to the Refugee Appeal Division for redetermination by a different panel; no costs.

  • The decision of the Refugee Appeal Division dated February 25, 2020 is set aside.
  • The matter is returned for redetermination by a different Refugee Appeal Division panel than heard either of the previous appeals related to this Applicant.
  • No costs are awarded to either party.

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 23 September 2020

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 23 September 2020

2020 FC 928

Palliyaralalage v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2020-09-23 Neutral citation 2020 FC 928 File numbers IMM-2041-20 Decision Content Date: 20200923 Docket: IMM-2041-20 Citation: 2020 FC 928 Toronto, Ontario, September 23, 2020 PRESENT: Mr. Justice A.D. Little BETWEEN:

DINESH NEWMAL PALLIYARALALAGE Applicant and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] The Respondent commenced this motion, with the consent of the Applicant, for an Order setting aside the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (“RAD”) dated February 25, 2020 and remitting the matter back to the RAD for re-determination, without costs. [2] I have reviewed the decision of the RAD and the Applicant’s position in his written submissions filed with his Notice of Application. I have also read the motion record and subsequent correspondence from the Respondent’s counsel, provided at the request of the Court having regard to Garshowitz v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 251 at paras 17-19 and related cases. [3] The written representations provided by the Respondent on this motion advised that the RAD “committed an error of natural justice” in rendering its decision. [4] Counsel’s correspondence advised that the parties agree that the RAD applied an “unreasonable view of the law” and that the RAD “repeated a similar error as identified by this Court in its initial review of the matter”. [5] That “initial review” was this Court’s decision in Palliyaralalage v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 596. The Court set aside a decision of the RAD dated August 27, 2018, concluding that the RAD had “breached procedural fairness by making new credibility findings without providing him notice and an opportunity to respond”. In his reasons,

Justice Campbell referred to Ojarikre v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 896 at paras 20-21 and Husian v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 684 at paras 9-10. [6] In this application, with an eye to Garshowitz, I accept the parties’ conclusion that the RAD has again failed to provide the Applicant with procedural fairness. Although the parties’ agreement and the submissions did not refer to the specific “similar error” made by the RAD this time, there were new credibility findings in the RAD decision at paras 25, 32, 42-45, 56 and 71. [7] The motion is granted on consent. The RAD’s decision will be set aside and Judgment issued on the terms proposed and agreed by the parties, with a slight modification to ensure that the matter is heard by a different member of the RAD than heard either of the Applicant’s appeals that have been set aside by this Court. [8] On the basis of the parties’ agreement that no costs will be awarded to either party, there will be no order as to costs. JUDGMENT in IMM-2041-20 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: 1. The decision of the Refugee Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated February 25, 2020, in which the Board confirmed the decision of the Refugee Protection Division that the Applicant was not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, is set aside.

2. The matter is returned for redetermination by a different Refugee Appeal Division panel than heard either of the previous appeals from the Refugee Protection Division related to this Applicant.

3. No costs are awarded to either party. "Andrew D. Little" Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2041-20 STYLE OF CAUSE: DINESH NEWMAL PALLIYARALALAGE v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, Ontario DATE OF HEARING:

IN WRITING REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: A.D. LITTLE J. DATED: september 23, 2020 SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Osasenaga Obazee Barrister Solicitor For The Applicant Erin Estok Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Palliyaralalage v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 596

Case cited

Ojarikre v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 896

Case cited

Husian v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 684

Case cited

Garshowitz v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 251

Case cited

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.