TB7-11521

TB7-11521

The RAD denied the extension because the applicant failed to meet statutory and rule-based requirements: multiple faxed requests did not comply with RAD Rule 37(4) (no affidavit/statutory declaration), documentary evidence was undated and could not be reconciled with affidavits, the lengthy unexplained delay (approximately eight months) was not reasonably justified by counsel's later illness, and the statutory criteria for fairness and necessary duration of extension were not satisfied, warranting dismissal for lack of perfection.

Citation
TB7-11521
Parties
Appellant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Appeal Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Refugee Appeal (extension of Time Application) / Decision on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and Appellant's Record; Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Perfection
Outcome
Application for extension of time denied; appeal dismissed for lack of perfection.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Perfection, Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice, Delay and Evidentiary Requirements (affidavit/statutory Declaration)
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Extension of Time Appeal Perfection Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice Delay and Evidentiary Requirements (affidavit/statutory Declaration)

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Appeal (extension of Time Application) / Decision on Application for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and Appellant's Record; Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Perfection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and perfect the appellant's record
  2. 2 Whether the applicant met the requirements of section 159.91 of the IRPA Regulations and RAD Rule 37(4)
  3. 3 Whether the delay was reasonably explained and the applicant demonstrated continuing intention to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The RAD denied the extension because the applicant failed to meet statutory and rule-based requirements: multiple faxed requests did not comply with RAD Rule 37(4) (no affidavit/statutory declaration), documentary evidence was undated and could not be reconciled with affidavits, the lengthy unexplained delay (approximately eight months) was not reasonably justified by counsel's later illness, and the statutory criteria for fairness and necessary duration of extension were not satisfied, warranting dismissal for lack of perfection.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time denied; appeal dismissed for lack of perfection.

Orders

  • Application for extension of time to file the notice of appeal and the appellant's record is denied; appeal dismissed for lack of perfection.