Arthur v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, (1992) 147 N.R. 288 (FCA)

• Judge: MacGuigan and Linden, JJ.A., and Gray, D.J.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: October 21, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 147 N.R. 288 (FCA)

Arthur v. MEI (1992), 147 N.R. 288 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Gertrude Arthur (applicant) v. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (respondent)

(No. A-991-90)

Indexed As: Arthur v. Minister of Employment and Immigration

Federal Court of Appeal

MacGuigan and Linden, JJ.A.,

and Gray, D.J.

November 2, 1992.

Summary:

An alien claimed refugee status. An adju­dicator dismissed the claim and the alien appealed on the ground that there was rea­sonable apprehension of bias because the same adjudicator decided a prior detention-review hearing against the same alien.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal - Bias, apprehension of [See Ad­ministrative Law - Topic 2093 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2093

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal - Bias, institutional or systemic - An alien claimed refugee status that was refused by an adjudicator - The alien appealed on the ground that there was reasonable apprehension of bias because the same adjudicator decided a prior de­tention-review hearing against the same alien - The Federal Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal - The court stated that there was no evidence of predisposition by the adjudicator on the alien's general cred­ibility such as to amount to prejudgment of the result of the second hearing (see para­graph 17).

Cases Noticed:

Committee for Justice and Liberty v. Na­tional Energy Board, [1976] S.C.R. 369; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716; 9 N.R. 115, refd to. [para. 7].

MacBain v. Canadian Human Rights Commission, [1985] 1 F.C. 856; 62 N.R. 117 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Nord-Deutsche Versicherungs Gesellschaft v. R., [1986] 1 Ex. C.R. 443, refd to. [para. 8].

Vance v. Hardit Corp. (1985), 18 Admin. L.R. 111; 12 O.A.C. 223 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

Fogel v. Minister of Manpower and Immi­gration, [1975] F.C. 121; 7 N.R. 172 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Tomko v. Labour Relations Board (N.S.) (1974), 9 N.S.R.(2d) 277 (C.A.), affd. [1977] 1 S.C.R. 112; 7 N.R. 317, refd to. [para. 9].

Kinaschuk and Weiser, Re (1983), 3 D.L.R.(4th) 521 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Pursley v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1989), 8 Imm. L.R.(2d) 211; 29 F.T.R. 204, refd to. [para. 9].

Rosario, Re (1984), 10 Admin. L.R. 90 (Que. S.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

Hart and the Queen, Re (1981), 60 C.C.C.(2d) 474 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Huziak v. Andrychuck (1977), 1 C.R.(3d) 132 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Klydel Holdings Inc., Re (1979), 10 O.M.B.R. 203 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Mullan, David, Administrative Law, 1 C.E.D. (Ont. 3rd), pp. 3-130-31 #54, [para. 10].

Counsel:

Daniel L. Winbaum, for the applicant;

Leigh A. Taylor, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Gordner, Klein, Windsor, Ontario, for the applicant;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by MacGuigan and Linden, JJ.A., and Gray, D.J., of the Federal Court of Appeal on October 21, 1992. The decision of the court was delivered by Mac­Guigan, J.A., on November 2, 1992.