Dan-Ash v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, (1988) 93 N.R. 33 (FCA)

• Judge: Marceau, Hugessen and LaCombe, JJ.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 21, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1988), 93 N.R. 33 (FCA)

Dan-Ash v. MEI (1988), 93 N.R. 33 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Le Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (requerant) v. Taysir Dan-Ash (intimé) et Commission d'appel de l'Immigration (mise en cause)

(A-655-86)

Indexed As: Dan-Ash v. Minister of Employment and Immigration

Federal Court of Appeal

Marceau, Hugessen and LaCombe, JJ.

June 21, 1988.

Summary:

The Immigration Appeal Board ruled that a claimant was a Convention refugee. The Minister appealed on the ground that the Board erred in refusing to admit the certificate of a fingerprint examiner on the ground that it was not the best evidence.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the application and set aside the Board's decision on the ground that the Board erred in refusing to admit the certificate, where the Board was not bound by the rules of evidence.

Aliens - Topic 1331

Admission - Refugees - Evidence - At a hearing on refugee status the Minister through a police witness produced a certificate of a police fingerprint examiner stating that the claimant's fingerprints matched those taken in Germany and Australia, evidence which conflicted with the claimant's testimony - The Immigration Appeal Board refused to admit the certificate on the ground that it was not the best evidence - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Board's ruling was an error of law, because under s. 65 (2)(c) of the Immigration Act the Board was not bound by the rules of evidence, particularly the best evidence and hearsay rules.

Aliens - Topic 1856

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration Appeal Board - Evidence - [See Aliens - Topic 1331 above].

Cases Noticed:

Jolly v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1975] F.C. 216; 7 N.R. 271, appld. [para. 4].

Saddo v. Immigration Appeal Board, [1981] 2 F.C. 703; 39 N.R. 515, appld. [para. 4].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, sect. 55(2)(c) [para. 3].

Counsel:

Michel Lecours, for the applicant;

Harry Tsimberis, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Frank Iacobucci, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

Borenstein, Duquette, Brott & Tsimberis, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This case was heard on June 20 and 21, 1988, at Montreal, Quebec, before Marceau, Hugessen and LaCombe, JJ., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On June 21, 1988, Hugessen, J., delivered the following oral judgment for the Federal Court of Appeal: