Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
La Cour fédérale rejette le contrôle judiciaire d’une décision de la SAR en matière d’asile, jugeant raisonnable l’analyse de crédibilité et l’exclusion de nouvelles preuves.
Federal Court allowed judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division decision, finding unreasonable refusal of new evidence and unreasonable credibility analysis, and remitted the matter.
The RPD erred by concluding the appellant was not credible without accounting for newly admitted medical evidence showing memory impairment from neurological condition and medication; the new evidence is admissible but insufficient to substitute a positive decision, therefore the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the RPD for redetermination with directions to treat the appellant as vulnerable and to proceed before a differently constituted panel.
Source excerpt
The RAD upheld the RPD's credibility findings: the appellants made major omissions and provided inconsistent, evasive testimony; the two documents offered on appeal were reasonably available prior to the RPD and inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA; procedural fairness was respected; therefore the appellants failed to prove refugee status or need for protection and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The RAD confirms the RPD: the appellants are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection because Port Harcourt and Abuja constitute viable internal flight alternatives that are safe and reasonable for the appellants; the therapy letter was admitted as new evidence but does not undermine the IFA finding; WhatsApp messages and photographs were excluded for credibility/insufficient explanation; the appeal is dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Source excerpt
The RAD concluded RPD counsel acted competently and did not breach natural justice; the proposed affidavits and Rule 29 documents predated the RPD decision, were corrective attempts to relitigate credibility findings and were reasonably available earlier, therefore they failed s.110(4) and Rule 29; the RPD's adverse credibility findings were justified because of numerous and material BOC omissions; accordingly the RPD decision is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed under s.111(1)(a) IRPA.
Source excerpt
The appellants failed to demonstrate a forward‑looking risk to life because the tribunal correctly found they could reasonably avoid future harm by relinquishing their disputed inheritance; the proffered FIR was not admitted as new evidence under s.110(4) and the omission of an alleged arrest undermined credibility but was not central to the dispute about property as the source of risk.
Source excerpt
The RAD admitted the Haitian passport and Brazilian identity card as new evidence under s.110(4) IRPA, found a hearing unnecessary under s.110(6), set aside the RPD's finding on identity, and referred the matter to the RPD under s.111(1) IRPA directing the RPD to accept the appellant's identity and to consider exclusion and fear issues in re-determination.
Source excerpt
RAD confirmed the RPD's decision because the new evidence was inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA, the RPD properly assessed credibility, and appropriately applied the two‑prong IFA analysis concluding relocation to Abéché (or other cities) would not be objectively unreasonable; therefore the appellant is neither a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Source excerpt
The RAD dismissed the appeal because the RPD's finding that any personalized risk was dated and the remaining risk generalized was supported by the record, and the appellant's post‑decision materials were inadmissible under s.110(4) IRPA because they were reasonably available before the RPD hearing; consequently there was no basis for appellate intervention.
Source excerpt
Explore more
