Canada Case Law

TB5-05207

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD found the RPD breached natural justice by (1) relying on its own specialized knowledge without giving notice under Rule 22 and failing to allow response, and (2) using language evidencing a reasonable apprehension of bias; those legal errors rendered the RPD decision wrong in law and required referral to the RPD for redetermination under s.111(1)(c) IRPA; RAD declined to substitute a positive determination because no new evidence was filed under s.110(4).

Source excerpt

• Convention refugee
• Falun gong
• Credibility
• Specialized knowledge (rule 22)
• Apprehension of bias
• Remittal

Read case analysis

A. M. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The alleged bias contained sufficient specifics to establish a ground of appeal and thus gave the application a reasonable chance of success; accordingly leave to appeal was granted pending further submissions and evidence.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Allegation of bias
• Standard for leave
• Grounds of appeal under s.58(1)

Read case analysis

CK Auto Services Ltd. v. British Columbia (Attorney General)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Judicial review dismissed. The Court upheld the Director’s reconsideration decision, finding no unreasonable error, bias, or material procedural unfairness in the CVSE cancellation process.

• Show cause hearing
• License cancellation
• Standard of review
• Reasonableness
• Evidentiary issues
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

Francis v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court granted judicial review of an RPD refugee decision, finding the reasons unreasonable because key evidence on enforcement of anti-homosexuality laws in Saint Vincent was not addressed.

• Recusal
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Sufficiency of reasons
• State protection
• Persecution
• Sexual orientation

Read case analysis

Canada (Attorney General) v. Chrétien

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The Applications Judge properly applied the reasonable apprehension of bias test, had an evidentiary foundation for attributing spokesperson statements to the Commissioner, and relied on the cumulative effect of events to quash the Commission's findings against Chrétien; there was no palpable and overriding error and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Media communications by commissions
• Attribution of spokesperson statements
• Standard of appellate review

Read case analysis

R. v. Rawlins

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The court held that the trial judge had no obligation to conduct an inquiry into whether triers understood their role or were biased and was not required to instruct that an affirmative answer to the screening question automatically disqualified the prospective juror; assessment must include demeanour and reaction in light of R. v. Brown.

Source excerpt

• Juror disqualification
• Trial judge instructions
• Assessment of juror demeanour

Read case analysis

Arunachalam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed because the panel's possession and limited use of the preliminary conference notes did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, the nondisclosure did not breach procedural fairness in the circumstances (including an adjournment and opportunity to respond), and MacKay J. did not err in concluding the credibility finding was reasonable given contextual country risk findings about Tamils from Colombo.

Source excerpt

• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Nondisclosure of evidence
• Credibility findings
• Expedited processing (s.69(7.1) immigration act)

Read case analysis

R. v. Rose

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The cumulative effect of numerous significant trial errors by Crown counsel — including pervasive leading questions eliciting crucial testimony, improper cross-examination of the Crown's own witness and the accused, elicitation of inadmissible hearsay and unqualified opinion evidence — together with the trial judge's failure to intervene, rendered the trial unfair; convictions were therefore set aside and a new trial ordered.

Source excerpt

• Leading questions
• Accomplice evidence
• Cross-examination of witness and accused
• Hearsay
• Expert opinion evidence
• Reasonable apprehension of bias

Read case analysis