VB4-01907

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 : VB4-01907 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and decision ? Motifs et décision Person(s) who is(are) XXXX XXXX XXXX Personne(s) en cause the subject of the appeal Appeal considered at Vancouver, BC Appel instruit à Date of decision December 1, 2014 Date de la décision Panel Rena Dhir Tribunal Counsel for the person(s) who is(are) David Matas Conseil(s) du (de la/des) the subject of the appeal Barrister and Solicitor personne(s) en cause Designated representative N/A Représentant(e) désigné(e) Counsel for the Minister N/A Conseil du ministre REASONS FOR DECISION [1] XXXX XXXX XXXX (the "appellant") appeals the June 2, 2014 determination of the Refugee Protection Division (the "RPD"). The claim was heard by the RPD on May 12, 2014 and May 23, 2014 with a Notice of Decision being sent to the appellant on June 17, 2014. The RPD found that the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA" or the "Act").1 DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL [2] Pursuant to subsection 111(1)(a) of the Act, the Refugee Appeal Division (the "RAD") confirms the determination of the RPD, namely, that XXXX XXXX XXXX is neither a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the Act nor a person in need of protection pursuant to section 97 of the Act. This appeal is therefore dismissed. BACKGROUND [3] Counsel for the appellant before the RAD is different than the counsel he had at the RPD. The Minister intervened before the RPD but not the RAD. [4] The appellant does not seek to present "new" evidence to the RAD pursuant to subsection 110(4) of IRPA. Basis of Claim [5] According to the allegations set out in the appellant's Basis of Claim form (BOC),2 the appellant is a XXXX year-old man from Ethiopia. His family has been falsely accused of supporting the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) which is a separatist rebel group in Ethiopia. [6] The appellant was born in Kabri Dahar in the Somali region of Ethiopia. He is of Somali ethnicity to the Ogaden clan. He lived in Kebri Dahar with his parents, two brothers, and four sisters until 2006. [7] In 2004 the appellant's father was falsely accused by the government of being a member of the ONLF. Later that year, his father was arrested and remained in prison for XXXX years. [8] While the appellant was in Panama, his father was released after being tortured in prison. [9] Around April 2007, soldiers came to his house and arrested his eldest brother, XXXX. XXXX was detained at the police station for a week before he was released. A week after his release, the soldiers returned and arrested XXXX again. Three months later the Ethiopian government called the family and told them XXXX had been killed and to come and collect his body. The appellant, his uncle, and mother went to the gate of the military facility to get XXXX body. [10] In December 2008, Ethiopian soldiers came to the family house and threatened the family to stop supporting the ONLF. Approximately one week after these threats, the appellant left Kebri Dahar and travelled to Kenya where he lived for a month. He left Kenya and travelled to South Africa. The appellant made a request for refugee status in South Africa. He was given a temporary refugee permit that he had to renew every six months for two years. Then he would be required to renew his status only every two years. [11] While in South Africa, the appellant learnt from his mother that the Ethiopian soldiers were enquiring about his whereabouts and suspected that he had left to work with the ONLF. [12] The appellant got married on XXXX XXXX, 2011 in South Africa to a woman from Ethiopia. His wife joined him in South Africa. [13] In 2009, the appellant's uncle told him over the phone that he too was threatened by the Ethiopian government and had fled to Kenya. However, he could not support his family in Kenya and returned to Ethiopia in 2011. In the first week his uncle was back, the Ethiopian soldiers came to his house, took him outside, and shot him. [14] Life in South Africa was difficult for the appellant. Local bandits targeted Somalis. He received numerous threats. He went to the police four times but nothing ever happened. The appellant closed the store he owned with his business partner in XXXX 2011. The appellant left for the US but sent his wife back to Ethiopia. [15] The appellant travelled through Johannesburg, Argentina, Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico before he reached the US on July 22, 2012. Once in the US, the appellant was detained where he requested asylum. His claim was rejected and he came to Canada to seek refugee protection in August 2013. [16] The appellant fears that he will be killed at any time if he is caught by the Ethiopian soldiers. [17] The RPD's reasons stated that the appellant's case for refugee protection was rejected based on the issue of identity and credibility. GROUNDS OF APPEAL [18] The appellant's submissions as to the grounds of this appeal can be summarized as follows:3 * Did the RPD Member err in her assessment of the appellant's identity as an Ethiopian national by incorrectly weighing the supporting evidence incorrectly? * Did the RPD Member err by not taking into consideration the differences in the Ethiopian calendar and the Gregorian calendar when assessing credibility of the appellant? * Did the RPD Member err in her negative credibility findings surrounding the situation of the appellant's older brother, younger brother, and his wife? REMEDY SOUGHT [19] The appellant has requested that the RAD, under subsection 111(1)(b) of the Act, set aside the determination of the RPD and substitute a determination that the appellant is a Convention refugee or person in need of protection. Alternatively, the appellant requests, under subsection 111(1)(c) of the Act, that the RAD allow the appeal and refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted panel, subject to any directions made by the RAD. ROLE OF THE RAD [20] Although the Act sets out grounds for appeal as well as possible remedies, it does not specify the standard of review to be applied by the RAD. [21] RAD, being a new division, has struggled with the standard of review to be used in assessing RAD appeals based on several Federal Court cases that have differed in their approach of what standard of review should be used. Initially, RAD followed the Supreme Court of Canada (the "Supreme Court") case, Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick4 as the leading case on standard of review. In Dunsmuir, the Supreme Court has said that there should be only two standards when reviewing administrative decisions: unreasonableness and correctness. The standard of correctness applies to questions of law, while the standard of reasonableness applies to questions of fact, and mixed fact and law. [22] In recent months, the Federal Court has issued differing decisions on the role of RAD when conducting an appeal of the RPD determination. These decisions include the recent Federal Court cases Iyamuremye,5 Ng, Alvarez,6 and Huruglica,7 among others. [23] The Federal Court in Iyamuremye addressed the question of the proper standard of review to be applied by the RAD in reviewing RPD findings and confirmed that the appropriate standard of review for questions of fact and mixed fact and law is reasonableness, and the appropriate standard of review for questions of law is correctness. "That said, the Court finds that in assessing the reasonableness of the decision, the RAD should, at the very least, have reviewed the evidence that as presented before the RPD and conducted an independent assessment of all the evidence in order to determine whether the RPD, on the basis of the facts and the conditions of the country in question, had properly considered the evidence and reasonably justified its' conclusion."8 [24] In Alvarez, Justice Shore said that, "the Court is of the view that the RAD must be able to correct any error of law in a decision of the RPD or any palpable or overriding error in the findings of fact or the application of the law to these facts."9 Furthermore, Justice Shore stated that, "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 RPD relied on a wrong principle of law or misassessed the facts to the point of making a palpable and overriding error."10 Justice Shore also said in Alvarez that, "the RAD must perform its own assessment of all the evidence in order to determine whether the RPD relied on a wrong principle of law or misassessed the facts to the point of making a palpable and overriding error." 11 [25] In Huruglica, Justice Phelan found that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD's decision on the standard of reasonableness and concluded that 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." Justice Phelan also states that, "that notion may well justify deference to a RPD's decision in a circumstance where a witness' credibility is critical or determinative." Where there is no adverse finding of credibility, the policy rationale for deference is not sustainable. [26] Justice Phelan also found that the RAD's role should be to determine whether the RPD decision is wrong rather than look at whether it was a reasonable decision. Justice Phelan emphasized that the RAD's mandate is to conduct a fact based review. The RAD, Justice Phelan said, "must review all aspects of the RPD's decision and come to an independent assessment ... Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision." Furthermore, "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 a 'palpable and overriding error'." [27] The appellant submits that the "Refugee Appeal Division sits on appeal from the Refugee Protection Division and not on judicial review from the Refugee Appeal Division. The Refugee Appeal Division does not have a jurisdiction akin to the Federal Court. It is not a second Federal Court, or rather a first line Federal Court."12 [28] The Huruglica decision is the most thorough of all the recent cases, and the first one where the Court has certified a question for the Federal Court of Appeal. Again, I refer to paragraphs 54 and 55 of Huruglica which read as follows: 54. 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.13 55. 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."14 [29] Therefore, in this appeal, the RAD has reviewed all aspects of the RPD's decision and has conducted its own independent assessment of all the evidence to determine whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL [30] I will not be assessing the issue of whether the RPD Member erred in concluding that the appellant's identity as a national of Ethiopia has not been established because, in the alternative, the RPD Member also made adverse credibility findings on the merits of the claim. Having said that, I also note that identity is an essential element of a claim for refugee protection.15 If the claimant cannot establish her identity, on a balance of probabilities, the claim would simply fail, unless there is a valid reason as to why she could not. In Sai Su.16 Madame Justice Snider stated the following: [3] Proof of identity is a pre-requisite for a person claiming refugee protection as without it there can "be no sound basis for testing or verifying the claims of persecution or, indeed for determining the Applicant's true nationality" (Jin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 126 at para 26, [2006] FCJ No 181 (QL); see also Liu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 831 at para 18, [2007] FCJ No 1101(QL). Section 106 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] and s. 7 [now section 11] of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2002-228 [Rules] set out the importance of establishing a claimant's identity: [4] The onus is on the claimant to produce acceptable documentation establishing his or her identity. This is a high burden, as it should be. [31] In Yip,17 the Federal Court held that the claimant has the fundamental obligation to establish her or his identity on a balance of probabilities. In Kante,18 the Court affirmed that a claimant must come to a hearing with all of the evidence that he or she is able to offer and believes is necessary to prove the claim. [32] Although the RPD Member did not accept the appellant's identity as a national of Ethiopia, she did go on to assess his claim against Ethiopia. In reviewing the RPD's Member's reasons there is no indication that the RPD Member made any connection between the appellant's failure to prove his identity and the credibility of his story. For the purpose of this appeal, I will assume that the RPD Member analyzed the merits of the claim on the alternative basis that he was considered to be a national of Ethiopia. Specifically, I will assess the RPD Member's reasons for why she does not find the appellant to be at risk if he returns to Ethiopia. I will therefore focus on the credibility findings in this appeal surrounding the appellant's allegations of the risk he fears in Ethiopia. [33] I will now turn to the specific submissions by the appellant as to errors allegedly made by the RPD Member in her credibility assessment surrounding his allegations. Dates [34] The RPD Member found the appellant to be not credible in regards to the inconsistencies surrounding the dates and certain events that took place in Ethiopia. The appellant submits "that the Ethiopian calendar is substantially different from the Western (Gregorian) calendar. So Ethiopian-Western calendar conversion is not a simple task. A person may be good at remembering dates, but poor at calendar conversion. The Refugee Protection Division member in this case, when considering time frames, shows no awareness of this issue. The Refugee Protection Division Member at the hearing refer to Western dates, but makes no reference to the Ethiopian calendar. The claim needs to be redone so that the appellant can be asked to express dates in his own calendar for events which happened in Ethiopia rather than expecting him to convert as best as he can his dates to what to him is a foreign calendar. Only when he testifies to events in his own dates can any proper assessment be made of his claim."19 [35] The RPD Member found that "a central issue for this panel was the numerous inconsistencies with the claimant's evidence in regards to the threats against him and his subsequent departure from Ethiopia."20 "The panel would reasonably expect that the claimant, a somewhat educated person, skilled in money changing and owner of small businesses and having the benefit of seeking asylum a previous two times, would be able to recount the details of these events in a reasonable fashion."21 [36] Specifically, the RPD Member found a contradiction in the appellant's departure from Ethiopia. In his BOC22 and referral forms,23 the appellant stated that he departed from Ethiopia in April 2008, a week after the threats against him and his family. In the appellant's US asylum claim,24 the appellant states the threats happened in December 2008. The RPD Member also notes in her decision that in "the original US asylum claim, this date had been manually changed from December 2007 to 2008 and had stated that his departure was a week after these threats."25 [37] I have also reviewed the evidence before me and listened to the oral hearing in its entirety. [38] After extensive questioning by the RPD Member and the Minister's counsel, the appellant testified that the date of the threats should read December 2007. According to the oral testimony, even after accepting this error, the RPD Member and Minister's counsel found inconsistencies in the timeframe. [39] In my own assessment of the evidence, I note that in the appellant's BOC, question 2(e), he states that he "left Ethiopia on April 2008 by bus."26 In his background declaration,27 the appellant states that he lived in Ethiopia until June 2008. On another form the appellant states he took a bus from Kabri Dehar to Mandera, Enya, and then he took a bus to Narobi, Kenya,28 and he left Ethiopia on April 1, 2008 and arrived in Kenya on the same day. In reviewing the oral testimony at the RPD hearing and the evidence before the RPD and RAD, I find there are clearly a lot of inconsistencies surrounding the appellant's departure from Ethiopia. I also find the appellant has not provided persuasive arguments to explain these inconsistencies. [40] Having said that, I find the RPD Member's findings on date inconsistencies are accurate with respect to the evidence before the RPD. After the RPD Member and Minister accepted that even if the appellant was threatened by the Ethiopian soldiers in XXXX 2007, the dates as to the appellant's departure did not make sense. The appellant also did not provide persuasive explanations as to when he actually left Ethiopia. In his testimony, the appellant testified that after the soldier came to his home in XXXX 2007, he left a week later and "he was travelling and taking several stops and it took me over a month to go to Nairobi".29 The Minister's counsel pointed out to the appellant that there is still a difference of four-six months. This is when the appellant testified that 'it can be a mistake in how I calculated but I am sure I left Ethiopia in April 2008 and arrived in South Africa June 2008".30 The RPD Member asked31 the appellant why he did not add the information about travelling to other cities in Ethiopia in any of the other forms before the RPD Member. The appellant testified that the BOC narrative was written in the US.32 I note the Federal Court has said "It is not incorrect to say that answers given in a PIF should be brief but it is incorrect to say that the answers should not be complete with all of the relevant facts. It is not enough for [a claimant] to say that what he said in oral testimony was an elaboration. All relevant and important facts should be included in one's PIF. The oral evidence should go on to explain the information contained in the PIF."33 [41] I agree with the RPD Member that the appellant has made two asylum claims in other countries before making his refugee claim in Canada. In particular to the asylum claim in the US, the facts surrounding his circumstances are all the same. I find the appellant had ample opportunities to get his dates corrected since the previous claims were made in other countries. The appellant testified that he had communicated to his lawyer in the US that there were mistakes in the dates. However, I agree with the RPD Member that the appellant had ample opportunities to correct anything on his forms submitted to the RPD prior to his hearing. In reviewing the testimony surrounding the issue of the appellant's departure from Ethiopia, I find that the appellant has not provided persuasive arguments that the date inconsistencies are due to date conversions between the two calendars only. [42] The recording of the RPD hearing reveals that the RPD Member and Minister's counsel confronted the appellant with these inconsistencies and gave him the opportunity to provide explanations. Regardless of the conversion of calendars, I find there is sufficient evidence to find the appellant to not be credible. I am not persuaded by the appellant's arguments that would make me disagree with the assessment of the inconsistencies identified by the RPD Member. Brother's Death [43] The appellant also submits that the RPD's negative credibility finding surrounding the appellant's brother's death is inaccurate based on the evidence before the RPD. [44] The RPD Member found "of particular concern to the panel member during the hearing was the apparent contradiction in the claimant's evidence on the events surrounding the alleged death of the claimant's brother. The claimant's testimony contradicted his previous statements in his BOC narrative. In testimony he had submitted that he was not with the persons who had gone to collect the body at the prison, that he had not seen the body. When confronted with these statements being contradictory to the statements in his BOC where he had stated that he had gone to the prison that he saw that his brother had been shot the claimant adjusted his testimony to say that he had gone part way into the prison and had reasoned that the narrative must be wrong."34 [45] In reviewing the compact disc (CD) recording of the RPD hearing, I note that the appellant was asked if he went to collect his brother's body.35 The appellant testified that he did not go, and that he never saw his brother's body except when it was wrapped up at his brother's grave. The RPD Member asked the appellant to explain this inconsistency as his BOC states that he did go to the prison to collect his brother's body and that he did see the gunshot wounds. The appellant testified that he does not remember what it says in the form but he only saw his brother's body wrapped and the people who washed the body told him about the gunshot wounds.36 Minister's counsel also asked the appellant if the narrative to his BOC was incorrect to which the appellant testified "I won't say the narrative is incorrect".37 [46] I note that the appellant testified that he relied on a student who helped him with the applications. I also note that the appellant continually referred to problems with his US application and the information being incorrect on those forms as well. However, again, I agree with the RPD Member's finding that the appellant had ample opportunities to correct his BOC before his hearing date. This was also stated to the appellant at the hearing by the RPD Member and Minister's counsel. I find the appellant has not provided any persuasive arguments as to why these corrections were not made prior to his hearing date. I find that the substantial amounts of inconsistencies relating to what was said at the hearing compared to the other evidence before the RPD Member persuades me to conclude that the RPD Member had sufficient reasons to find the appellant not credible. [47] I also note that the RPD Member and Minister's counsel did confront the appellant with the inconsistencies, but found the appellant did not provide "reasonable explanations". The appellant argues that "at the hearing [he] did say that the youth 'were not allowed to pass a certain area, we were asked to stay back, but the elders, like my mom, my uncle, and a few other community elders, they were allowed to pass through".38 However, it is clear to me that the RPD Member's negative credibility finding stems from the fact that what was said at the hearing was substantially different from what is written in the BOC. I too find the appellant not credible in this regard. Younger Brother and Wife [48] The appellant also submits that there "was no omission of the younger brother's detention. It is found in the Basis of Claim form."39 The appellant argues that "the reasoning of the Refugee Protection Division member indicates that the concern was not omission, but failure to repeat spontaneously in oral testimony without being specifically asked the evidence found in the Basis of Claim form about the younger brother."40 [49] I note that the RPD Member, in her analysis, does acknowledge that "the claimant had stated he had been arrested and detained for two years."41 However, I have reviewed the interchange between the RPD Member and the appellant at the hearing by reviewing the CD recording. I note that the context within which this question was asked is quite different from the way the appellant's has portrayed it in his arguments. Initially, the RPD Member specifically asked the appellant "Has anyone else in your family been targeted similar to you?"42 The appellant testified "All have moved to Kenya. Uncle's daughter is currently arrested and detained for a while."43 I also note that this question was asked after the appellant had testified about his sister's problems in Ethiopia. The RPD Member later asked the appellant specifically about his younger brother. "Why not talk about him [younger brother] when you were asked what other family members were targeted?"44 The claimant was asked to explain and according to his testimony, he stated "I had forgotten about it and yes you did ask me that question."45 [50] I find the appellant's failure to provide the information about his younger brother when first prompted by the RPD Member does undermine his credibility. Wife [51] The appellant argues that "as for the wife, the analysis of the Refugee Protection Division member is incomplete."46 The appellant, in his memorandum, refers to the risk the wife would face in South Africa. However, since this appeal relates to the appellant, I will only focus on how the wife's return to Ethiopia affects the appellant's credibility in the RPD Member's decision and in my own assessment. The RPD Member found that "why, if the claimant had a credible fear of the Ethiopian authorities and had to flee Ethiopia for those reasons and his family had repeatedly been targeted, would a person return their loved one to such a location. The reasons provided by the claimant are that he believed that the journey to North America to be too onerous is a problematic one for his wife."47 The RPD Member further found that "risk to life and risk of stress and hardship are not one in the same and the panel does find that the choice to return the claimant's wife does undermine the credibility of his assertion that he fears for his life and the life of his family in Ethiopia."48 [52] Taking into consideration the appellant's allegations that his family has fled Ethiopia, I find that the RPD Member's findings surrounding the wife's return to a country that the appellant fears risk in, is amply justified. I find that there is nothing in the evidence that persuades me to disagree with the RPD Member's assessment. [53] In reviewing the oral testimony, I note that the RPD Member gave ample opportunities to the appellant to explain the contradictions and inconsistencies put to him. The appellant has not provided persuasive evidence that the RPD Member erred in her credibility assessment of his claim, and has not persuaded me to reach a different conclusion. I am of the opinion that the appellant's credibility was undermined by many hesitations in his testimony and inconsistencies relating to his evidence. I am of the opinion, as was the RPD, that there is enough confusion and inconsistencies in the evidence submitted to conclude that the appellant's credibility has been undermined. [54] The Federal Court has made it clear in a number of cases that when assessing the credibility of a claimant, it is important to remember that all of the evidence, both oral and documentary, must be considered and assessed, not just selected portions of the evidence.49 I find that the RPD Member has adequately assessed all the evidence before her in finding the appellant not credible. I have also not only reviewed the RPD Member's decision thoroughly, but I have also assessed all the evidence thoroughly. I also note that the RPD Member's decision states that "the panel does note that as a single issue, each of these concerns would not have been sufficient to negate his claim, however the cumulative effect of the issues raised in this analysis are sufficient to undermine the claimant's evidence before this panel."50 Having reviewed the entirety of the record, I too find the appellant not credible. REMEDY [55] For all these reasons, I confirm the determination of the RPD in accordance with subsection 111(1)(a) of IRPA, namely, that XXXX XXXX XXXX is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection. This appeal is therefore dismissed. (signed) "Rena Dhir" Rena Dhir December 1, 2014 Date 1 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the "Act"), S.C., 2001, c. 27. 2 Exhibit 3, Refugee Protection Division Record (RPDR). 3 Exhibit 4, Appellant's Record (AR). 4 Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9. 5 Iyamuremye v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 494. 6 Alvarez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 702. 7 Huruglica v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 799. 8 Iyamuremye v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 494; para. 41. 9 Alvarez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 702; para. 27. 10 Alvarez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 702; para. 28. 11 Alvarez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 702; para. 33. 12 Exhibit 4, AR, Memorandum. 13 Huruglica v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 799; para. 54. 14 Huruglica v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 799; para. 55. 15 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, s.106. 16 Su, Sai v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4632-11), Snider, June 14, 2012, 2012 FC 743, at paragraph 3. 17 Yip, Fu On v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. A-921-92), Nadon, October 27, 1993. 18 Dante, Abdoulaye v. M.E.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2585-93), Nadon, March 23, 1994. 19 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision. 20 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision. 21 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision. 22 Exhibit 3, RPDR. 23 Exhibit 3, RPDR. 24 Exhibit 3, RPDR. 25 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision. 26 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Basis of Claim. 27 Exhibit 3, RPDR, p. 41. 28 Exhibit 3, RPDR, p. 45. 29 Exhibit 3, RPDR, CD Recording. 30 Exhibit 3, RPDR, CD Recording. 31 Exhibit 3, RPDR, CD Recording, Nov. 12 [2:35:41]. 32 Exhibit 3, RPDR, CD Recording. 33 Basseghi, Kourosh v. M.C.I. (F.C.T.D., no. IMM-2227-94), Teitelbaum, December 6, 1994. 34 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision. 35 Exhibit 3, RPDR, CD Recording, Nov. 12 [00:44:56]. 36 Exhibit 3, RPDR, CD Recording, Nov. 12 [01:17:56]. 37 Exhibit 3, RPDR, CD Recording, Nov. 12 [01:27]. 38 Exhibit 4, AR, Memorandum. 39 Exhibit 4, AR, Memorandum. 40 Exhibit 4, AR, Memorandum. 41 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision. 42 Exhibit 3, RPDR, CD Recording, Nov. 12 [01:12:20]. 43 Exhibit 3, RPDR, CD Recording, Nov. 12. 44 Exhibit 3, RPDR, CD Recording, Nov. 12 [02:44:14]. 45 Exhibit 3, RPDR, CD Recording, Nov. 12. 46 Exhibit 4, AR, Memorandum. 47 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision. 48 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision. 49 Owusu, Kweku v. M.E.I. (F.C.A., no. A-1146-87), Heald, Hugessen, Desjardins, January 31, 1989. 50 Exhibit 3, RPDR, Member's Decision. --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RAD File No. / N° de dossier de la SAR : VB4-01907