Esheria Canada Case Law
Sign in
Canada Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Canada Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
1 court collection
Last checked

Search and filter Canada case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Canada decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Immigration law VC0-02545

VC0-02545

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RPD's IFA assessment was legally incorrect because it failed to consider objective documentary evidence and claimant-specific circumstances relevant to single women's ability to relocate and survive in Lagos or Ibadan, and the RPD failed to inquire into whether the appellant had access to financial or familial support in the IFA cities; as RAD cannot resolve these missing factual determinations without a hearing, the proper remedy is to set aside the RPD determination and refer the matter to a new member for re-determination under paragraph 111(1)(c) IRPA.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Female genital mutilation
  • Forced marriage
  • Standard of review
  • New evidence
  • Referral for re-determination
Read case analysis
Immigration law MC0-09947

MC0-09947

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD concluded the RPD erred in making a general finding of lack of credibility and in rejecting corroborative documentary evidence without adequate analysis; because determinative issues (including IFA and the effect of an alleged fatwa) require further fact‑finding and questioning, RAD could not substitute its own decision and therefore set aside the RPD determination and referred the matter for re‑determination by a new member pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Source excerpt

  • Credibility assessment
  • Internal flight alternative
  • Corroborative evidence
  • Fatwa and blasphemy allegations
  • Standard of review
  • Referral for re-determination
Read case analysis
Immigration law MC0-08979

MC0-08979

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD found the RPD's adverse credibility findings against the male appellant were legally erroneous because they relied improperly on absence of corporate corroboration and gave determinative weight to a 12-day delay; the RPD also failed to consider Exhibit D-1 (four police/peace court documents) that were directly probative. Consequently the RAD set aside the RPD's determination for the two adult appellants and referred those matters to the RPD for re-determination by a differently constituted panel. The RAD confirmed the RPD's decision dismissing the minor appellant's claim for protectio…

Source excerpt

  • Credibility findings
  • Corroboration
  • Referral for re-determination
  • Standard of review
  • Asylum shopping/delay
  • Irpa s96 and s97 interpretation
Read case analysis
Immigration law MB9-28759

MB9-28759

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD found the RPD committed determinative errors in its credibility assessment—notably relying on incomplete Minister research that misdated the May 27 demonstration and failing to properly assess contradictions and evidence—concluded the appellant's sworn affidavit did not constitute new evidence, denied an oral RAD hearing because no new evidence was admitted, allowed the appeal, set aside the RPD decision and referred the matter to a differently constituted RPD for re-determination.

Source excerpt

  • Credibility assessment
  • Admission of new evidence on appeal
  • Standard of review
  • Referral for re-determination
  • Oral hearing on appeal
Read case analysis
Immigration VB9-05621

VB9-05621

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RPD erred by failing to engage with, test and explain its treatment of central evidence that the claimant was pursued across Nigeria and thus may face persecution everywhere in Nigeria; relying on NDP material about Benin City without addressing or putting to the claimant the inconsistencies and omissions in his evidence rendered the IFA finding flawed, warranting referral to a differently constituted RPD panel for re-determination.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Credibility findings
  • Referral for re-determination
  • Convention refugee status
Read case analysis
Immigration law MB9-21516

MB9-21516

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

On independent review the RAD found the RPD did not err in its adverse credibility findings because of material omissions, contradictions and implausibilities in the appellant's account; however the RPD erred in not analyzing the impact of the July 2018 fire on prospective risk under s.97(1)(b). The appropriate remedy is to allow the appeal and refer the matter to a differently constituted RPD panel for re-determination.

Source excerpt

  • Credibility
  • Procedural fairness
  • Risk assessment
  • Referral for re-determination
Read case analysis
Immigration TB9-14903

TB9-14903

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the RPD for re-determination because the RPD's adverse credibility findings and the presence of remarkably similar evidence across unrelated claims raised integrity and disclosure issues that require further examination and possible Minister involvement; the RAD exercised its authority to refer under s.111 rather than decide the merits.

Source excerpt

  • Credibility
  • Judicial notice and specialized knowledge
  • Procedural fairness (audi alteram partem)
  • Integrity of the refugee protection system
  • Referral for re-determination
Read case analysis
Immigration law VB9-07244

VB9-07244

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RPD erred by concluding State protection was adequate regarding threats from the Hausa buyers without addressing cogent National Documentation Package evidence demonstrating the Nigerian Police Force's operational deficiencies and endemic corruption; accordingly the RAD allowed the appeal in part and referred the matter to the RPD for re‑determination by a differently constituted Panel pursuant to s.111(1)(c) IRPA.

Source excerpt

  • State protection
  • Admission of new evidence
  • Standard of review
  • Referral for re-determination
  • Operational adequacy of police
Read case analysis
Immigration MB9-00812

MB9-00812

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RAD set aside the RPD decision because the RPD simultaneously accepted the appellants' allegations as credible while failing to account for evidence that the Council of Elders had the means to locate the appellants outside their State; the RPD therefore erred in concluding a viable IFA existed and the matter must be remitted to the RPD for re-determination by a different member.

Source excerpt

  • Internal flight alternative
  • Credibility assessment
  • Well-founded fear of persecution
  • Convention refugee determination
  • Referral for re-determination
Read case analysis
Immigration law MB9-04535

MB9-04535

Court
Refugee Appeal Division

The RPD committed determinative errors in its credibility assessment because its written reasons were cursory, lacked analysis of evidence, and the hearing was conducted in a rushed and procedurally deficient manner; because the RAD cannot substitute its own determination absent a new hearing and there is no new evidence, the appropriate remedy is to set aside the RPD determination and refer the matter to a differently constituted RPD panel for re-determination under IRPA ss.110(6), 111(2) and 111(1)(c).

Source excerpt

  • Credibility assessment
  • Standard of review
  • Referral for re-determination
  • Procedural fairness
  • Irpa provisions
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Canada decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.