Brodrick v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 491

• Judge: Diner, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 26, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 FC 491;(2015), 479 F.T.R. 58 (FC)

Brodrick v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 479 F.T.R. 58 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.054

Abieyuwa V. Brodrick (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-5986-13; 2015 FC 491)

Indexed As: Brodrick v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

Diner, J.

April 17, 2015.

Summary:

The applicant, a citizen of Nigeria, claimed refugee protection. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected the claim on the basis that the applicant had an internal flight alternative. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upheld the RPD's decision. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application and remitted the matter to a newly constituted panel of the RAD for reconsideration.

Administrative Law - Topic 9122

Boards and tribunals - Administrative appeals - Scope of appeal or standard of review - [See Aliens - Topic 1334 ].

Aliens - Topic 1326.1

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Division - Determination by - [See Aliens - Topic 1334 ].

Aliens - Topic 1334

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Appeals or judicial review - Scope of review - Brodrick, a citizen of Nigeria, claimed refugee protection on the basis that she was the victim of domestic abuse - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected the claim on the basis that Brodrick had an internal flight alternative - The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), applying the standard of reasonableness to the RPD's decision, dismissed Brodrick's appeal - The Federal Court allowed Brodrick's application for judicial review - The court was to review the RAD's selection of its standard of review for reasonableness - It was unreasonable for the RAD to review the RPD's decision for reasonableness - The RAD was not a judicial body - To replicate a process of judicial review that the court could then be required to undertake could not have been Parliament's intention, as it would render the court's role duplicative - Imposing a judicial framework was inconsistent with the administrative law principles animating the RAD's functions, and incompatible with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, particularly s. 111(1)(b), which enabled the RAD to substitute its own factual findings upon review - This did not necessarily mean that the RAD had to conduct an appeal de novo, but it should have undertaken its own review of the documentary evidence.

Cases Noticed:

Newton v. Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association (Alta.) et al. (2010), 493 A.R. 89; 502 W.A.C. 89; 2010 ABCA 399, refd to. [para. 10].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 16].

Huruglica v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 461 F.T.R. 241; 2014 FC 799, agreed with [para. 18].

Triastcin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 465 F.T.R. 231; 2014 FC 975, refd to. [para. 18].

Spasoja v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 464 F.T.R. 160; 2014 FC 913, refd to. [para. 18].

Yetna v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 463 F.T.R. 128; 2014 FC 858, agreed with [para. 18].

Akuffo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 467 F.T.R. 94; 2014 FC 1063, folld. [para. 18].

Nnah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 318; 2015 FC 77, refd to. [para. 18].

Bahta et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 471 F.T.R. 122; 2014 FC 1245, refd to. [para. 21].

Djossou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 467 F.T.R. 289; 2014 FC 1080, refd to. [para. 23].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 24].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat (2011), 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 25].

Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat.

Tervita Corp. et al. v. Commissioner of Competition et al. (2015), 467 N.R. 97; 2015 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 27].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission (2013), 452 N.R. 340; 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 30].

Attaran v. Canada (Attorney General) (2015), 467 N.R. 335; 2015 FCA 37, refd to. [para. 30].

Alvarez et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 296; 2014 FC 702, refd to. [para. 31].

Khachatourian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 55; 2015 FC 182, agreed with [para. 32].

Alyafi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 465 F.T.R. 114; 2014 FC 952, agreed with [para. 32].

Imperial Oil v. Jacques et al. (2014), 463 N.R. 170; 2014 SCC 66, refd to. [para. 34].

Diarra v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 430; 2014 FC 1009, refd to. [para. 35].

Counsel:

Mercy Dadepo, for the applicant;

Suzanne M. Bruce, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Mercy Dadepo, North York, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 26, 2015, before Diner, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons on April 17, 2015.