Geldon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2015) 477 F.T.R. 173 (FC)

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Judge: LeBlanc, J.
• Citation: (2015), 477 F.T.R. 173 (FC),2015 FC 374
• Date: 04 November 2014

Geldon v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 477 F.T.R. 173 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.009

Barre Farah Geldon (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-1038-14; 2015 FC 374)

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

Federal Court

LeBlanc, J.

March 24, 2015.

Summary:

The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected Geldon's claim for refugee protection. Geldon appealed. The Refugee Appeal Division, applying a standard of review of reasonableness, dismissed the appeal. Geldon applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application, remitting the matter for redetermination by a different panel.

Aliens - Topic 1331

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Evidence - The Federal Court indicated that the interpretation of s. 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act regarding the admissibility of fresh evidence on an appeal was to be "sufficiently flexible to ensure that such claimants have access to a 'full fact-based appeal', as intended by Parliament, especially considering the strict timelines a claimant now faces for initially submitting evidence before the [Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board]" - Section 110(4) was not to be interpreted based on the wording and jurisprudence of s. 113, which governed the admissibility of evidence in the context of pre-removal risk assessments - See paragraphs 16 to 21.

Aliens - Topic 1334

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Appeals or judicial review - Scope of review - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected Geldon's claim for refugee protection - Geldon appealed - The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), applying a standard of review of reasonableness, dismissed the appeal - The Federal Court allowed Geldon's application for judicial review, remitting the matter for redetermination by a different panel - The RAD was intended to be an administrative tribunal with expertise equal to that of the RPD in the area of refugee protection so as to be in a position to correct errors that the RPD might have committed - An appeal before the RAD was to be a "complete review" of the questions of fact, law and mixed fact and law raised in the appeal - It was a full, fact-based appeal, rather than a form of judicial review - By reviewing the RPD's decision on a reasonableness standard, the RAD had deprived Geldon of the appeal process that Parliament had created - See paragraphs 9 to 15.

Aliens - Topic 4071

Practice - Judicial review and appeals - Fresh evidence - [See Aliens - Topic 1331 ].

Cases Noticed:

Iyamuremye et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 455 F.T.R. 201; 2014 FC 494, refd to. [para. 10].

Triastcin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 465 F.T.R. 231; 2014 FC 975, refd to. [para. 10].

Akuffo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 467 F.T.R. 94; 2014 FC 1063, refd to. [para. 10].

Alvarez et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 296; 2014 FC 702, refd to. [para. 10].

Eng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 297; 2014 FC 711, refd to. [para. 10].

Njeukam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 355; 2014 FC 859, refd to. [para. 10].

Yetna v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 463 F.T.R. 128; 2014 FC 858, refd to. [para. 10].

Spasoja v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 464 F.T.R. 160; 2014 FC 913, refd to. [para. 10].

Huruglica et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 461 F.T.R. 241; 2014 FC 799, refd to. [para. 10].

Diarra v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 430; 2014 FC 1009, refd to. [para. 10].

Guardado et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 402; 2014 FC 953, refd to. [para. 10].

Alyafi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 465 F.T.R. 114; 2014 FC 952, refd to. [para. 10].

Djossou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 467 F.T.R. 289; 2014 FC 1080, refd to. [para. 10].

Aloulou et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2015), 470 F.T.R. 303; 2014 FC 1236, refd to. [para. 11].

Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 466 F.T.R. 187; 2014 FC 1022, refd to. [para. 14].

Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2007), 370 N.R. 344; 2007 FCA 385, refd to. [para. 19].

Khachatourian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 55; 2015 FC 182, refd to. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 110(4) [para. 16].

Counsel:

David Matas, for the applicant;

Nalini Reddy, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

David Matas, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on November 4, 2014, by LeBlanc, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 24, 2015.