Canada Case Law

MC0-08939

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RPD did not breach natural justice or procedural fairness and reasonably found the appellant not credible on material aspects of his claim because of unexplained omissions, contradictions between testimony and documents, and failure to produce expected corroboration; those credibility findings fatally undermined the claim that he faces a serious possibility of persecution or a risk of torture, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Procedural fairness
• Exclusion
• Risk of torture
• Convention refugee status
• Corroboration

Read case analysis

TC0-04649

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD found that prior counsel's specific acts and omissions — failure to amend the BOC, failure to involve the Designated Representative, failure to solicit and present reasonably available corroborative evidence, and deficient performance at hearing and in submissions — fell outside the range of reasonable professional assistance and caused a miscarriage of justice by undermining the reliability of the RPD result; consequently the RAD admitted the new evidence as reasonably not presented due to counsel incompetence and remitted the matter to the RPD for a new hearing to fully assess exclu…

Source excerpt

• Counsel incompetence
• Miscarriage of justice
• Article 1f(b) exclusion (child abduction)
• Admission of new evidence (s.110(4) irpa)
• Credibility assessment
• Remittal for de novo hearing

Read case analysis

MB9-24703

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The RPD did not breach natural justice or procedural fairness because the appellant had ample opportunity to respond to the Minister's intervention and anonymous letter; the decision was based on independent credibility findings supported by omissions, contradictions and lack of corroboration in the appellant's evidence; the erroneous reference to Angolan authorities was a non‑determinative clerical error; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Credibility
• Procedural fairness
• Ministerial intervention
• Appeal review

Read case analysis

VB9-10043

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

The appeal is allowed because, based on the accepted medical/psychological assessment demonstrating the appellants' compromised functional capacity, it is more likely than not that they could not appreciate the nature of the RPD proceedings and the RPD failed to recognize their vulnerability and appoint a Designated Representative; this breach of natural justice requires remittal to the RPD for redetermination by a differently-constituted Panel.

Source excerpt

• Vulnerable persons
• Designated representative
• New evidence
• Remittal under s.111(2)
• Competency/mental health

Read case analysis

Castro v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding the RPD unreasonably refused to reopen a refugee claim after abandonment and remitted the matter for redetermination.

• Claim abandonment
• Application to reopen under rpd rule 62
• Change of address obligations
• Counsel negligence and file transfer
• Standard of review - reasonableness
• Refugee-claim-abandonment

Read case analysis

VB9-03109

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

RPD's adverse credibility findings based on alleged omissions were not sustainable on the record, and critically the RPD breached procedural fairness by failing to put the appellants on notice that the objective basis for their claims was a live issue; consequently the RAD allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted Panel with directions to consider imputed political opinion and the objective basis and to afford the appellants an opportunity to present evidence and submissions.

Source excerpt

• Credibility assessment
• Objective basis for claim
• Imputed political opinion
• Notice and procedural fairness
• Remittal to administrative decision-maker

Read case analysis

MSI Methylation Sciences, Inc. v. Quark Venture Inc.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Appeal from an arbitration award was dismissed. The Court held there was no natural justice breach and the proposed appeal grounds were not questions of law.

• Leave to appeal under arbitration act s.31
• Setting aside award for arbitral error (natural justice)
• Damages assessment (expectation loss and loss of opportunity)
• Enforcement of arbitration awards under s.29
• Questions of law vs mixed fact and law
• Arbitration

Read case analysis

TB9-23066

Court

Refugee Appeal Division

Admitted new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA; identified significant interpretation and translation failures at the RPD hearing that, on a balance of probabilities, impeded the appellants' right to be heard and undermined the RPD's adverse credibility findings; because removal of those credibility conclusions leaves insufficient evidence for the RAD to confirm or substitute the RPD decision and the RAD could not hold a fresh oral hearing, the appropriate remedy under s.111(1)(c) IRPA is to set aside the RPD decision and refer the matter to the RPD for redetermination by a differently constituted…

Source excerpt

• Interpretation/translation errors
• Credibility assessment
• Admissibility of new evidence on appeal
• Referral for redetermination
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

Surrey Knights Junior Hockey v. The Pacific Junior Hockey League

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the PJHL acted unfairly in seeking to expel the Surrey Knights, holding the team lacked adequate notice and faced a biased decision-maker.

• Oppression remedy
• Expulsion of member
• Natural justice
• Bias/unbiased tribunal
• Jurisdiction of voluntary associations
• Disclosure obligations

Read case analysis

S. W. v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal because the General Division did not commit a reviewable error: the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay; the June 30, 2014 email was admissible and on the balance of probabilities the Appellant sent a threatening email; that conduct was willful or reckless and constituted misconduct justifying termination and disentitlement to EI benefits.

Source excerpt

• Misconduct
• Jurisdiction to grant stays
• Admissibility of evidence
• Privilege (solicitor-client and litigation)
• Reasonable apprehension of bias
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis