TB7-07104

TB7-07104

The RAD found material breaches of procedural fairness by the RPD—specifically the erroneous refusal to accept post‑hearing submissions, the failure to consider relevant Rule 20(5) factors and expert medical evidence when denying a designated representative, and the failure to identify or apply Vulnerable Persons Guideline—such that the RPD's deficiencies prevented a fair hearing; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) and s.111(2) IRPA.

Citation
TB7-07104
Parties
Principal Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX; Secondary Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Dependent Child: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Designated Representative: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Counsel for the Minister: N/A
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RAD Decision on Appeal; Matter Referred to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) and s.111(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Designated Representative, Vulnerable Persons, Credibility Findings, Post Hearing Evidence, Re Determination Under S.111, Mental Health Evidence, Gender Guidelines
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Procedural Fairness Designated Representative Vulnerable Persons Credibility Findings Post Hearing Evidence +3 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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

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

Principal Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Secondary Appellant

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Dependent Child

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Designated Representative

N/A

Counsel for the Minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / RAD Decision on Appeal; Matter Referred to RPD for Re Determination by a Differently Constituted Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the RPD breached procedural fairness by refusing to accept post-hearing submissions
  2. 2 Whether the RPD failed to consider and apply Rule 20(5) factors when denying appointment of a designated representative
  3. 3 Whether the RPD failed to identify and accommodate the principal appellant as a vulnerable person and apply Guideline 8

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD found material breaches of procedural fairness by the RPD—specifically the erroneous refusal to accept post‑hearing submissions, the failure to consider relevant Rule 20(5) factors and expert medical evidence when denying a designated representative, and the failure to identify or apply Vulnerable Persons Guideline—such that the RPD's deficiencies prevented a fair hearing; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted panel under s.111(1)(c) and s.111(2) IRPA.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter referred to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) and s.111(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Refer the matter to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination by a differently constituted panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) and s.111(2) IRPA