MB6-05706

RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-05706, MB6-05707, MB6-05708, MB6-05709 Private Proceeding / Huis clos Reasons and Decision - Motifs et décision Appellant(s) XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Appelant(e)(s) Appeal considered/heard at Montréal, Quebec Appel instruit à Date of decision November 10, 2016 Date de la décision Panel Normand Leduc Tribunal Counsel for the appellant(s) Me Anthony Karkar Conseil(s) du (de la/des) Appelant(e)(s) Designated representative(s) XXXX XXXX Représentant(e)(s) désigné(e)(s) Counsel for the Minister Conseil du (de la) Ministre REASONS AND DECISION Application for an Extension of Time to File and Perfect an Appeal [1] On September 28, 2016, the appellants filed a notice of appeal before the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) against a Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision rejecting their refugee protection claim. The RPD's notice of decision is dated September 7, 2016, and the appellants are deemed to have received it on September 14, 2016. [2] On October 20, 2016, the appellants submitted an application for an extension of time to perfect an appeal, along with the appellant's record. [3] The time limit for perfecting the appellant's record has expired, as the time limit set out in section 159.9 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) for perfecting the record was October 14, 2016. According to paragraphs 159.91(1)(a) and (b) of the IRPR, an appeal must be filed within 15 days after the day on which the written reasons for the decision are received, and the appeal must be perfected within 30 days after the day on which the written reasons for the decision are received. Subsection 159.91(1) states: 159.91 (1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purpose of subsection 110(2.1) of the Act, o (a) the time limit for a person or the Minister to file an appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division against a decision of the Refugee Protection Division is 15 days after the day on which the person or the Minister receives written reasons for the decision; and o (b) the time limit for a person or the Minister to perfect such an appeal is 30 days after the day on which the person or the Minister receives written reasons for the decision. [4] Subsection 159.91(2) of the Regulations states: 159.91 (2) If the appeal cannot be filed within the time limit set out in paragraph 1)(a) or perfected within the time limit set out in paragraph (1)(b), the Refugee Appeal Division may, for reasons of fairness and natural justice, extend each of those time limits by the number of days that is necessary in the circumstances. [5] There are three components to this subsection. First, the appellant must have been unable to file and perfect the appeal within the prescribed time limits. The appellant must provide an explanation for the delay and demonstrate a continuing intention to pursue the appeal. An affidavit must be filed to that effect. Second, the subsection refers to a "necessary" number of days. The appellant must provide an explanation for every extra day requested. Third, extensions of time must be granted for reasons of procedural fairness and natural justice. [6] The panel is also guided by Canada (Attorney General) v. Pentney, 2008 FC 96, which establishes four factors to consider in applications for an extension of time: (a) a continuing intention to pursue the appeal; (b) an arguable case; (c) a reasonable explanation for the delay; and (d) no prejudice to the other party. An appellant is not required to meet all these factors. In considering these factors, the panel must ensure, first and foremost, that procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice are respected. [7] In their application, the appellants explain their delay in filing their record by the fact that their counsel had problems with the computer system at his office on October 13, 2016, which affected a significant number of his files. An affidavit from the counsel's secretary was included with the application to corroborate the explanations given. [8] The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness of Canada (the Minister) did not intervene in this case. [9] I am of the opinion that the appellants demonstrated a continuing intention to pursue their appeal by filing their appellant's record within a reasonable timeframe-six days-given the explanations provided. I find that there is no prejudice to the other party, the Minister, in this case. For reasons of natural justice and procedural fairness, the application for an extension of time is allowed and the panel accepts the appeal record submitted on October 20, 2016. [10] The application is allowed, and the female appellant's record is deemed to have been perfected on the date of this decision, that is, November 10, 2016. Normand Leduc Normand Leduc November 10, 2016 Date IRB translation Original language: French 1 RAD.25.02 (April 9, 2013) Disponible en français RAD File No. / No de dossier de la SAR : MB6-05706, MB6-05707, MB6-05708, MB6-05709 2