Genu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2015) 475 F.T.R. 38 (FC)

• Judge: Shore, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 02, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 475 F.T.R. 38 (FC);2015 FC 129

Genu v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 475 F.T.R. 38 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.048

Nadege Yamdi Genu (partie demanderesse) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration (partie défenderesse)

(IMM-3895-14; 2015 CF 129; 2015 FC 129)

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

Federal Court

Shore, J.

February 3, 2015.

Summary:

The applicant, a citizen of Cameroon, applied for refugee protection. The Refugee Protection Division rejected the application. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissed the applicant's appeal. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application and referred the matter back for redetermination by a differently constituted panel of the RAD.

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 - Genu, a citizen of Cameroon, applied for refugee protection, asserting that she was a victim of domestic violence - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) dismissed the application on the basis of Genu's lack of credibility - Genu's appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) was dismissed - The Federal Court allowed Genu's application for judicial review - The RAD was required to assess the evidence filed with the RPD to draw its own conclusions regarding the grounds of appeal raised by the parties - The RAD did not conduct any analysis beyond merely repeating the RPD's findings - Its reasons suggested that it simply relied on the RPD's credibility findings without conducting its own assessment of the evidence - Genu was denied a true appeal.

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 16].

Ndam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 349; 2010 FC 513, refd to. [para. 16].

Ferencova v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 388 F.T.R. 114; 2011 FC 443, refd to. [para. 16].

Iyamuremye et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 455 F.T.R. 201; 2014 FC 494, refd to. [para. 22].

Parizeau v. Barreau du Québec, 2011 QCCA 1498, refd to. [para. 24].

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. 24].

Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Anglican Diocesan Centre Corp. et al. (2010), 290 N.S.R.(2d) 361; 920 A.P.R. 361; 2010 NSCA 38, refd to. [para. 24].

Budhai et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 292 N.R. 379; 2002 FCA 298, refd to. [para. 25].

Edmonton Police Service v. Furlong et al. (2013), 544 A.R. 191; 567 W.A.C. 191; 2013 ABCA 121, refd to. [para. 25].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Hunter (2013), 443 N.R. 342; 2013 FCA 12, refd to. [para. 25].

Akuffo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 467 F.T.R. 94; 2014 FC 1063, refd to. [para. 26].

Bui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 530; 2014 FC 1145, refd to. [para. 26].

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. 26].

Njeukam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 355; 2014 FC 859, refd to. [para. 28].

Huruglica et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 461 F.T.R. 241; 2014 FC 799, refd to. [para. 28].

Allalou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 468 F.T.R. 35; 2014 FC 1084, refd to. [para. 28].

Sajad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 507; 2014 FC 1107, refd to. [para. 28].

Yin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 486; 2014 FC 1209, refd to. [para. 29].

Alyafi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 465 F.T.R. 114; 2014 FC 952, refd to. [para. 30].

Kurtzmalaj v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 445; 2014 FC 1072, folld. [para. 35].

Djossou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 467 F.T.R. 289; 2014 FC 1080, refd to. [para. 36].

Meilina v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 470 F.T.R. 179; 2014 FC 1233, refd to. [para. 36].

Counsel:

Stéphanie Valois, for the applicant;

Edith Savard, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Stéphanie Valois, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on February 2, 2015, before Shore, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons on February 3, 2015.