Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica

Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Huruglica
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2016-03-29
Neutral citation
2016 FCA 93
File numbers
A-470-14
Notes
A correction was made on December 12, 2016.
Reported Decision
Decision Content
Date: 20160329
Docket: A-470-14
Citation: 2016 FCA 93
CORAM:
GAUTHIER J.A.
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
and
BUJAR HURUGLICA
HANIFE HURUGLICA
SADIJE RAMADANI
Respondents
and
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS and CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES
Interveners
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on September 29, 2015.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 29, 2016.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:
GAUTHIER J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
Date: 20160329
Docket: A-470-14
Citation: 2016 FCA 93
CORAM:
GAUTHIER J.A.
WEBB J.A.
NEAR J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
and
BUJAR HURUGLICA
HANIFE HURUGLICA
SADIJE RAMADANI
Respondents
and
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF REFUGEE LAWYERS and CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES
Interveners
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GAUTHIER J.A.
[1] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the appellant or the Minister) appeals from the decision of Justice Michael L. Phelan of the Federal Court allowing the three respondents’ application for judicial review: 2014 FC 799. In their application, the respondents were contesting the validity of the decision of the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB), which dismissed their appeal from the Refugee Protection Division (RPD).
[2] Pursuant to subsection 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA or the Act), the judge certified the following question:
What is the scope of the Refugee Appeal Division’s review when considering an appeal of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division?
[3] The respondents, who are citizens of Kosovo and Muslim, claim that their lives were threatened by an Islamic extremist group, the Wahhabis, and that the local police were unresponsive to their requests for help. The RPD rejected their claim on the basis that, among other things, they had not satisfied their burden of providing clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption that state protection would be forthcoming to them in Kosovo. The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the Canadian Council for Refugees were granted intervener status to support the respondents’ position.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the appeal.
I. Background [5] Mr. Bujar Huruglica is married to Ms. Hanife Huruglica. Sadije Ramadani is Ms. Huruglica’s mother. As mentioned, the respondents are all citizens of Kosovo and Muslim. Following Mr. Huruglica’s and Ms. Ramadani’s employment by U.S. government contractors, they and their families were allegedly threatened in Kosovo by Islamic extremists. They testified that the Kosovar police were not responsive to their concerns and that their attempts to complain about the threats they received were not taken seriously. The respondents fled Kosovo in January 2013. They traveled through the U.S., where they stayed on a visitor’s visa, and subsequently entered Canada, where they made their refugee claims in March 2013.
[6] Although the respondents testified in a straightforward manner, and the RPD did not note any significant inconsistencies or omissions in their testimony, the RPD rejected their claims on the basis that the respondents’ failure to make asylum claims while in the U.S. diminished the credibility that they had subjective fear. The country conditions documentary evidence before the RPD was found not to support the respondents’ allegation that they could not get adequate state protection in Kosovo. The RPD also noted that this documentation did not support the presence and power of Islamic extremists in Kosovo. As such, there was no persuasive evidence to establish that extremist Wahhabis – or any other extremists – had any significant influence over the police or other state institutions in Kosovo.
[7] Before the RAD, the respondents did not submit new evidence or seek an oral hearing. The respondents argued that the RPD’s credibility assessment was flawed, in that the RPD had failed to consider their explanation for not seeking protection in the U.S., and that it had ignored objective evidence of Islamic extremism in Kosovo. They further submitted that the RPD’s state protection analysis was deficient, as it ignored evidence of widespread corruption at all levels of government and of police inadequacy and misconduct.
[8] The RAD indicated that there was no need to deal with the alleged error in the assessment of the respondents’ credibility, since in its view, the decision of the RPD in respect of state protection was reasonably open to the RPD and was sufficient to dismiss the respondents’ claims.
[9] To reach its conclusion, the RAD determined the standard of review that applied to the appeal from the RPD’s decision. The respondents had made no submissions in that respect.
[10] The RAD used the framework developed in Newton v. Criminal Trial Lawyers’ Association, 2010 ABCA 399, 493 A.R. 89 [Newton] in its standard of review analysis. It found that the so-called Newton factors were better suited to the task than those set out in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 [Dunsmuir], given that the RAD is an administrative appeal body rather than a reviewing court. The Newton factors are the following:
a) the respective roles of the tribunal of first instance and the appellate tribunal, as determined by interpreting the enabling legislation;
b) the nature of the question in issue;
c) the interpretation of the statute as a whole;
d) the expertise and advantageous position of the tribunal of first instance, compared to that of the appellate tribunal;
e) the need to limit the number, length and cost of appeals;
f) preserving the economy and integrity of the proceedings in the tribunal of first instance; and
g) other factors that are relevant in the particular context.
[11] First, after a brief summary of some of the provisions dealing with the RPD and the RAD, the RAD concluded that:
These respective roles suggest deference is owed to findings of fact, or findings of mixed fact and law, that can be traced back to evidence given at the RPD hearing. Where the RAD has new evidence before it, either through documents or from an oral hearing, less deference may be owed, as the RPD will not have considered this evidence.
(RAD Reasons at para. 13)
[12] Second, the RAD noted that the issues before it were factual, and that these questions were generally reviewed on a deferential standard in both appellate courts and judicial review contexts: Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para. 89, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339.
[13] Third, the RAD held that the purpose and provisions of the IRPA suggest that the RAD is empowered to bring finality to the refugee protection process, and that it may be entitled to show less deference to the RPD in order to do so. In particular, the RAD drew from paragraph 111(1)(b) and subsections 111(2), 171(c) and 162(2) of the IRPA.
[14] Turning to the expertise and advantageous position of the RPD versus that of the RAD, the RAD underlined that the RPD always has the advantage of seeing and questioning refugee claimants, while the RAD will unfrequently have this opportunity. This “suggests that the RAD show deference to the RPD on findings of fact and particularly in respect to credibility, other than in situations where the RAD holds an oral hearing and therefore has opportunity to consider evidence first hand”: RAD Reasons at para. 20.
[15] The last factor considered by the RAD was the need to limit the number, length and cost of appeals and preserve the economy and integrity of RPD proceedings. This, in the RAD’s view, was the factor that outweighed the others and suggested a deferential approach to questions of fact, especially when added to the fact that the RPD has the advantage of hearing witnesses. In this respect, the RAD adopted the Alberta Court of Appeal’s conclusion in Newton “that it is ‘singularly inefficient’ for a first-level hearing to be repeated at the appellate tribunal”: RAD Reasons at para. 21. The RAD so held despite the fact that its interpretation of the legislation as a whole would lead to the conclusion that little or no deference was to be shown to the RPD findings: RAD Reasons at para. 22.
[16] Having so concluded, the RAD therefore determined that the appropriate standard of review in this appeal was that of reasonableness, as defined in Dunsmuir and Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708 [Newfoundland Nurses]. The RAD did not consider other alternatives, including the standard of palpable and overriding error set out in Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235 [Housen].
[17] In its decision on the merits of the appeal, the RAD closely examined the reasoning offered by the RPD, as well as the arguments presented by the respondents. The RAD noted that in addition to the objective evidence cited by the RPD, there was further objective evidence supporting the RPD’s conclusion on the adequacy of state protection. It noted that the objective evidence before the RPD was “mixed” , in that it set out deficiencies in the functioning of government institutions, but also reported on steps taken to improve the quality of law enforcement which had concrete results. This documentation also showed that the Kosovar population trusted its national police service and was largely satisfied with the police’s work.
[18] Having noted that local failures to provide effective policing do not amount to a lack of state protection unless such failures are situated by documentary evidence within a broader pattern of state inability or refusal to extend protection, the RAD reviewed the actual efforts made by the respondents with their local police and concluded that it was not unreasonable for the RPD to expect the respondents to do more than make an initial approach like they had done.
[19] In his reasons for granting the application for judicial review, the judge held that the RAD’s conclusion as to its role on appeal was reviewable on the standard of correctness. He justified this choice based on the fact that this question of law is one of general interest to the legal system as a whole that had particular significance outside the refugee law context. He noted that “setting the standard of review is a legitimate aspect of the superior court’s supervisory role”, and that both the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal applied the standard of correctness to review a similar issue: Newton; Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. United Gulf Developments Ltd., 2009 NSCA 78 [United Gulf]. The judge also mentioned that determining its standard of review fell outside the scope of the RAD’s expertise and experience, even if it involved the interpretation of the IRPA, the RAD’s home statute. For these reasons, the judge distinguished the case before him from that of Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2011 SCC 61, 2011 3 S.C.R. 654 [Alberta Teachers].
[20] The judge then held that the RAD had erred in applying the standard of reasonableness to its review of the RPD decision. He noted that this standard was adopted to recognize the division of powers between the executive and the judiciary, a concept that is of “lesser importance and applicability” in this case, which involves an administrative appeal body: Federal Court Reasons at para. 43. In the judge’s view, the relationship between the RAD and the RPD “is more akin to that between a trial court and an appellate court but further influenced by the much greater remedial powers given to the appellate tribunal”: Federal Court Reasons at para. 44.
[21] The judge held that it may be appropriate to give deference to the RPD’s findings of fact when they turn on a witness’ credibility, but that this was not the case in the application before him. In respect of country conditions documentary evidence, the judge found that the RAD had equal or greater expertise than the RPD.
[22] Having reviewed the relevant legislation and its purpose, and having compared the role of the RAD to that of the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD), the judge concluded as follows:
[54] Having concluded that the RAD erred in reviewing the RPD’s decision on the standard of reasonableness, I have further concluded that for the reasons above, the RAD is required to conduct a hybrid appeal. It must review all aspects of the RPD’s decision and come to an independent assessment of whether the claimant is a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection. Where its assessment departs from that of the RPD, the RAD must substitute its own decision.
[55] In conducting its assessment, it can recognize and respect the conclusion of the RPD on such issues as credibility and/or where the RPD enjoys a particular advantage in reaching such a conclusion but it is not restricted, as an appellate court is, to intervening on facts only where there is a “palpable and overriding error”.
II. Issues [23] The questions to be determined are:
a) What is the standard of review to be applied by this Court, particularly in respect of the certified question?
b) What was the proper standard of review to be applied by the judge to the issue before him?
c) Did the judge properly apply this standard, that is, did the RAD make a reviewable error in defining the “scope of [its] review when considering an appeal of a decision of the RPD”? I note that this issue is narrower than the question certified by the judge, as the RAD’s assessment in the present case did not involve a question of law, nor raise an issue relating to the credibility of oral evidence heard by the RPD.
[24] With respect to the certified question, which is set out at paragraph 2, I will simply answer the question that is determinative of this appeal, for this is the only question that should have been properly certified under section 74(d) of the IRPA.
III. Legislation [25] The most relevant provisions of the IRPA are reproduced here, while other provisions referred to in these reasons are included in Appendix A:
Objectives and Application
Objet de la loi
Objectives — refugees
Objet relatif aux réfugiés
3. (2) The objectives of this Act with respect to refugees are
3. (2) S’agissant des réfugiés, la présente loi a pour objet :
(a) to recognize that the refugee program is in the first instance about saving lives and offering protection to the displaced and persecuted;
a) de reconnaître que le programme pour les réfugiés vise avant tout à sauver des vies et à protéger les personnes de la persécution;
(b) to fulfil Canada’s international legal obligations with respect to refugees and affirm Canada’s commitment to international efforts to provide assistance to those in need of resettlement;
b) de remplir les obligations en droit international du Canada relatives aux réfugiés et aux personnes déplacées et d’affirmer la volonté du Canada de participer aux efforts de la communauté internationale pour venir en aide aux personnes qui doivent se réinstaller;
(c) to grant, as a fundamental expression of Canada’s humanitarian ideals, fair consideration to those who come to Canada claiming persecution;
c) de faire bénéficier ceux qui fuient la persécution d’une procédure équitable reflétant les idéaux humanitaires du Canada;
(d) to offer safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, as well as those at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;
d) d’offrir l’asile à ceux qui craignent avec raison d’être persécutés du fait de leur race, leur religion, leur nationalité, leurs opinions politiques, leur appartenance à un groupe social en particulier, ainsi qu’à ceux qui risquent la torture ou des traitements ou peines cruels et inusités;
(e) to establish fair and efficient procedures that will maintain the integrity of the Canadian refugee protection system, while upholding Canada’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings;
e) de mettre en place une procédure équitable et efficace qui soit respectueuse, d’une part, de l’intégrité du processus canadien d’asile et, d’autre part, des droits et des libertés fondamentales reconnus à tout être humain;
(f) to support the self-sufficiency and the social and economic well-being of refugees by facilitating reunification with their family members in Canada;
f) d’encourager l’autonomie et le bien-être socioéconomique des réfugiés en facilitant la réunification de leurs familles au Canada;
(g) to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian society; and
g) de protéger la santé des Canadiens et de garantir leur sécurité;
(h) to promote international justice and security by denying access to Canadian territory to persons, including refugee claimants, who are security risks or serious criminals.
h) de promouvoir, à l’échelle internationale, la sécurité et la justice par l’interdiction du territoire aux personnes et demandeurs d’asile qui sont de grands criminels ou constituent un danger pour la sécurité.
Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division
Appel devant la Section d’appel des réfugiés
Appeal
Appel
110 (1) Subject to subsections (1.1) and (2), a person or the Minister may appeal, in accordance with the rules of the Board, on a question of law, of fact or of mixed law and fact, to the Refugee Appeal Division against a decision of the Refugee Protection Division to allow or reject the person’s claim for refugee protection.
110 (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (1.1) et (2), la personne en cause et le ministre peuvent, conformément aux règles de la Commission, porter en appel — relativement à une question de droit, de fait ou mixte — auprès de la Section d’appel des réfugiés la décision de la Section de la protection des réfugiés accordant ou rejetant la demande d’asile.
Restriction on appeals
Restriction
(2) No appeal may be made in respect of any of the following:
(2) Ne sont pas susceptibles d’appel :
(a) a decision of the Refugee Protection Division allowing or rejecting the claim for refugee protection of a designated foreign national;
a) la décision de la Section de la protection des réfugiés accordant ou rejetant la demande d’asile d’un étranger désigné;
(b) a determination that a refugee protection claim has been withdrawn or abandoned;
b) le prononcé de désistement ou de retrait de la demande d’asile;
(c) a decision of the Refugee Protection Division rejecting a claim for refugee protection that states that the claim has no credible basis or is manifestly unfounded;
c) la décision de la Section de la protection des réfugiés rejetant la demande d’asile en faisant état de l’absence de minimum de fondement de la demande d’asile ou du fait que celle-ci est manifestement infondée;
(d) subject to the regulations, a decision of the Refugee Protection Division in respect of a claim for refugee protection if
d) sous réserve des règlements, la décision de la Section de la protection des réfugiés ayant trait à la demande d’asile qui, à la fois :
(i) the foreign national who makes the claim came directly or indirectly to Canada from a country that is, on the day on which their claim is made, designated by regulations made under subsection 102(1) and that is a party to an agreement referred to in paragraph 102(2)(d), and
(i) est faite par un étranger arrivé, directement ou indirectement, d’un pays qui est — au moment de la demande — désigné par règlement pris en vertu du paragraphe 102(1) et partie à un accord visé à l’alinéa 102(2)d),
(ii) the claim — by virtue of regulations made under paragraph 102(1)(c) — is not ineligible under paragraph 101(1)(e) to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division;
(ii) n’est pas irrecevable au titre de l’alinéa 101(1)e) par application des règlements pris au titre de l’alinéa 102(1)c);
(d.1) a decision of the Refugee Protection Division allowing or rejecting a claim for refugee protection made by a foreign national who is a national of a country that was, on the day on which the decision was made, a country designated under subsection 109.1(1);
d.1) la décision de la Section de la protection des réfugiés accordant ou rejetant la demande d’asile du ressortissant d’un pays qui faisait l’objet de la désignation visée au paragraphe 109.1(1) à la date de la décision;
(e) a decision of the Refugee Protection Division allowing or rejecting an application by the Minister for a determination that refugee protection has ceased;
e) la décision de la Section de la protection des réfugiés accordant ou rejetant la demande du ministre visant la perte de l’asile;
(f) a decision of the Refugee Protection Division allowing or rejecting an application by the Minister to vacate a decision to allow a claim for refugee protection.
f) la décision de la Section de la protection des réfugiés accordant ou rejetant la demande du ministre visant l’annulation d’une décision ayant accueilli la demande d’asile.
Procedure
Fonctionnement
(3) Subject to subsections (3.1), (4) and (6), the Refugee Appeal Division must proceed without a hearing, on the basis of the record of the proceedings of the Refugee Protection Division, and may accept documentary evidence and written submissions from the Minister and the person who is the subject of the appeal and, in the case of a matter that is conducted before a panel of three members, written submissions from a representative or agent of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and any other person described in the rules of the Board.
(3) Sous réserve des paragraphes (3.1), (4) et (6), la section procède sans tenir d’audience en se fondant sur le dossier de la Section de la protection des réfugiés, mais peut recevoir des éléments de preuve documentaire et des observations écrites du ministre et de la personne en cause ainsi que, s’agissant d’une affaire tenue devant un tribunal constitué de trois commissaires, des observations écrites du représentant ou mandataire du Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés et de toute autre personne visée par les règles de la Commission.
Time limits
Délais
(3.1) Unless a hearing is held under subsection (6), the Refugee Appeal Division must make a decision within the time limits set out in the regulations.
(3.1) Sauf si elle tient une audience au titre du paragraphe (6), la section rend sa décision dans les délais prévus par les règlements.
Evidence that may be presented
Éléments de preuve admissibles
(4) On appeal, the person who is the subject of the appeal may present only evidence that arose after the rejection of their claim or that was not reasonably available, or that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection.
(4) Dans le cadre de l’appel, la personne en cause ne peut présenter que des éléments de preuve survenus depuis le rejet de sa demande ou qui n’étaient alors pas normalement accessibles ou, s’ils l’étaient, qu’elle n’aurait pas normalement présentés, dans les circonstances, au moment du rejet.
Exception
Exception
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply in respect of evidence that is presented in response to evidence presented by the Minister.
(5) Le paragraphe (4) ne s’applique pas aux éléments de preuve présentés par la personne en cause en réponse à ceux qui ont été présentés par le ministre.
Hearing
Audience
(6) The Refugee Appeal Division may hold a hearing if, in its opinion, there is documentary evidence referred to in subsection (3)
(6) La section peut tenir une audience si elle estime qu’il existe des éléments de preuve documentaire visés au paragraphe (3) qui, à la fois :
(a) that raises a serious issue with respect to the credibility of the person who is the subject of the appeal;
a) soulèvent une question importante en ce qui concerne la crédibilité de la personne en cause;
(b) that is central to the decision with respect to the refugee protection claim; and
b) sont essentiels pour la prise de la décision relative à la demande d’asile;
(c) that, if accepted, would justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim.
c) à supposer qu’ils soient admis, justifieraient que la demande d’asile soit accordée ou refusée, selon le cas.
Decision
Décision
111 (1) After considering the appeal, the Refugee Appeal Division shall make one of the following decisions:
(a) confirm the determination of the Refugee Protection Division;
(b) set aside the determination and substitute a determination that, in its opinion, should have been made; or
(c) refer the matter to the Refugee Protection Division for re-determination, giving the directions to the Refugee Protection Division that it considers appropriate.
111 (1) La Section d’appel des réfugiés confirme la décision attaquée, casse la décision et y substitue la décision qui aurait dû être rendue ou renvoie, conformément à ses instructions, l’affaire à la Section de la protection des réfugiés.
(1.1) [Repealed, 2012, c. 17, s. 37]
(1.1) [Abrogé, 2012, ch. 17, art. 37]
Referrals
Renvoi
(2) The Refugee Appeal Division may make the referral described in paragraph (1)(c) only if it is of the opinion that
(2) Elle ne peut procéder au renvoi que si elle estime, à la fois :
(a) the decision of the Refugee Protection Division is wrong in law, in fact or in mixed law and fact; and
a) que la décision attaquée de la Section de la protection des réfugiés est erronée en droit, en fait ou en droit et en fait;
(b) it cannot make a decision under paragraph 111(1)(a) or (b) without hearing evidence that was presented to the Refugee Protection Division.
b) qu’elle ne peut confirmer la décision attaquée ou casser la décision et y substituer la décision qui aurait dû être rendue sans tenir une nouvelle audience en vue du réexamen des éléments de preuve qui ont été présentés à la Section de la protection des réfugiés.
Provisions that Apply to All Divisions
Attributions communes
Sole and exclusive jurisdiction
Compétence exclusive
162 (1) Each Division of the Board has, in respect of proceedings brought before it under this Act, sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions of law and fact, including questions of jurisdiction.
162 (1) Chacune des sections a compétence exclusive pour connaître des questions de droit et de fait — y compris en matière de compétence — dans le cadre des affaires dont elle est saisie.
Procedure
Fonctionnement
(2) Each Division shall deal with all proceedings before it as informally and quickly as the circumstances and the considerations of fairness and natural justice permit.
(2) Chacune des sections fonctionne, dans la mesure où les circonstances et les considérations d’équité et de justice naturelle le permettent, sans formalisme et avec célérité.
Refugee Appeal Division
Section d’appel des réfugiés
Proceedings
Procédure
171 In the case of a proceeding of the Refugee Appeal Division,
171 S’agissant de la Section d’appel des réfugiés :
(a) the Division must give notice of any hearing to the Minister and to the person who is the subject of the appeal;
a) la section avise la personne en cause et le ministre de la tenue de toute audience;
(a.1) subject to subsection 110(4), if a hearing is held, the Division must give the person who is the subject of the appeal and the Minister the opportunity to present evidence, question witnesses and make submissions;
a.1) sous réserve du paragraphe 110(4), elle donne à la personne en cause et au ministre la possibilité, dans le cadre de toute audience, de produire des éléments de preuve, d’interroger des témoins et de présenter des observations;
(a.2) the Division is not bound by any legal or technical rules of evidence;
a.2) elle n’est pas liée par les règles légales ou techniques de présentation de la preuve;
(a.3) the Division may receive and base a decision on evidence that is adduced in the proceedings and considered credible or trustworthy in the circumstances;
a.3) elle peut recevoir les éléments de preuve qu’elle juge crédibles ou dignes de foi en l’occurrence et fonder sur eux sa décision;
(a.4) the Minister may, at any time before the Division makes a decision, after giving notice to the Division and to the person who is the subject of the appeal, intervene in the appeal;
a.4) le ministre peut, en tout temps avant que la section ne rende sa décision, sur avis donné à celle-ci et à la personne en cause, intervenir dans l’appel;
(a.5) the Minister may, at any time before the Division makes a decision, submit documentary evidence and make written submissions in support of the Minister’s appeal or intervention in the appeal;
a.5) il peut, en tout temps avant que la section ne rende sa décision, produire des éléments de preuve documentaire et présenter des observations écrites à l’appui de son appel ou de son intervention dans l’appel;
(b) the Division may take notice of any facts that may be judicially noticed and of any other generally recognized facts and any information or opinion that is within its specialized knowledge; and
b) la section peut admettre d’office les faits admissibles en justice et les faits généralement reconnus et les renseignements ou opinions qui sont du ressort de sa spécialisation;
(c) a decision of a panel of three members of the Refugee Appeal Division has, for the Refugee Protection Division and for a panel of one member of the Refugee Appeal Division, the same precedential value as a decision of an appeal court has for a trial court.
c) la décision du tribunal constitué de trois commissaires a la même valeur de précédent pour le tribunal constitué d’un commissaire unique et la Section de la protection des réfugiés que celle qu’une cour d’appel a pour une cour de première instance.
[Emphasis added]
[Je souligne]
IV. Analysis A. What is the standard of review to be applied by this Court, particularly in respect of the certified question? [26] When reviewing a decision of the Federal Court on a judicial review application, this Court must determine if the judge chose the appropriate standard(s) of review for the issue(s) before him and if he applied it (them) correctly: Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36 at paras. 45-47, 2013 2 S.C.R. 559 [Agraira]. The latter involves “stepping into the shoes” of the judge. This Court’s focus will thus be on the decision of the RAD.
[27] That said, the interveners particularly insisted that this Court should give the correct answer to questions that have been certified pursuant to subsection 74(d) of the IRPA. In their written and oral submissions, they relied on this Court’s decision in Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FCA 113 at paras. 30-37, [2015] 1 F.C.R. 335. However, since then, the Supreme Court has reversed this decision: Kanthasamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61, 391 D.L.R. (4th) 644 [Kanthasamy]. The Supreme Court confirmed that despite the fact that a certified question may well be of general importance to the refugee law system, it is not a type of question that falls within the exceptions to the application of the standard of reasonableness: Kanthasamy at para. 44.
[28] Kanthasamy will obviously have a tremendous impact, given that for many years, the Federal Court resorted to the certification process under subsection 74(d) to settle divergent interpretations or disagreements on legal issues of general importance. This Court’s providing the correct answer to certified questions appears to have been welcomed, particularly by the IAD and the RPD, who saw it as helpful in carrying out their functions.
[29] The legislator is obviously empowered to set the standard of review that it wants to see applied to questions certified pursuant to subsection 74(d) of the IRPA. However, this must be done very clearly. Should the legislator wish to continue the system that was in place before Kanthasamy, it would be required to amend the IRPA and clarify its intention that certified questions be reviewed on a correctness standard.
B. What was the proper standard of review to be applied by the judge to the issue before him? [30] The appellant strongly argues that the judge chose the wrong standard of review. The judge’s conclusion in that respect, as well as the precedents on which he relied (Newton and United Gulf), did not take into consideration all of the relevant Supreme Court of Canada decisions – especially those issued since 2011. Neither the judge nor the other two provincial courts of appeal turned their mind to the presumption that reasonableness applies to all questions of law arising from the interpretation of an administrative body’s home statute: see, for example, McLean v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2013 SCC 67, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 895 [McLean]; Smith v. Alliance Pipeline Ltd., 2011 SCC 7, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; and Canadian National Railway v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 40, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 135 [CN v. Canada]. The Minister submits that the judge misconstrued the limited exceptions where the standard of correctness may be applied. I agree with these submissions.
[31] With all due respect to the judge and his colleagues in the Federal Court who have agreed with his selection of standard of review, I simply cannot conclude that a question of law involving the interpretation of an administrative body’s home statute so as to determine its appellate role has any precedential value outside of the specific administrative regime in question: see, among others, Alvarez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 702, [2014] F.C.J. No. 740; Yetna v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 858, [2014] F.C.J. No. 906; Spasoja v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 913, [2014] F.C.J. No. 920 [Spasoja]; Bahta v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1245, [2014] F.C.J. No. 1278; Sow v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 295, 252 A.C.W.S. (3d) 316; Bellingy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1252, 260 A.C.W.S. (3d) 566. In fact, this logically relates to the argument put forth by the respondents and the interveners that it is not useful to look at decisions regarding the role of administrative appeal bodies other than those created under the IRPA: see also the Federal Court Reasons at para. 53.
[32] Just as legal principles applicable to cost awards and to time limitations have been found to fall within the expertise of the administrative bodies involved in Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 53 at para. 25, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471 and McLean at para. 21, defining the scope of its appellate function (or its standard of review) must be within the RAD’s expertise.
[33] I cannot agree with the respondents’ position that the issue before the judge was a true jurisdictional question. The respondents framed the issue as involving the overlapping ability of both the RPD and the RAD to exercise their sole and exclusive jurisdictions in making findings of fact, law and mixed fact and law on the same set of evidence. However, the Supreme Court has warned against an expansive interpretation of what it deems to be “true questions of jurisdiction”, as well as questions of overlapping or competing jurisdiction between two administrative bodies. In my view, there is no question here that falls under the scope of such exceptions. I agree with the position taken by other judges of the Federal Court, such as Justice Luc Martineau in Djossou v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1080, [2014] F.C.J. No. 1130 [Djossou] and Justice Jocelyne Gagné in Akuffo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1063, [2014] F.C.J. No. 1116, that this is not a question of true vires.
[34] Lastly, the Supreme Court made it clear in Kanthasamy that a question of general importance to the refugee law system does not fall under any of the other exceptions to the standard of reasonableness set out in Dunsmuir.
[35] I thus conclude that the judge erred in his selection of the standard of review applicable to the case before him, and that the proper standard ought to be that of reasonableness.
C. Did the RAD make a reviewable error in defining the scope of its review in this appeal from the RPD decision? [36] Before embarking on a statutory interpretation analysis, it is important to delineate what is in dispute before us from what is not.
[37] It is not disputed that the role of the RAD is not to review RPD decisions in the manner of a judicial review. All the parties agree that the process before the RAD is a “hybrid appeal”. The parties have also agreed that in respect of questions of law, the RAD should intervene if the RPD erred. That is, it must apply the correctness standard. In fact, and as explained below, one of the roles of the RAD is to develop a coherent national jurisprudence.
[38] What the parties disagree on is what a “hybrid appeal” means here, and what the RAD’s role is in respect of questions of fact and mixed fact and law.
[39] According to the Minister, the judge was wrong to the extent that his reasons can be interpreted as describing an appeal to the RAD as a de novo appeal. Indeed, the Minister submits that when the RAD does not hold a hearing and decides the issues raised by a claimant or the Minister on the basis of the record before the RPD (subsection 110(3) of the IRPA), the RAD is truly acting as an appellate court. Therefore, it should not carry out an independent assessment of the claim. Rather, the Minister says that the RAD should restrict its intervention to cases where the RPD made an unreasonable finding or, in the alternative, a palpable and overriding error: Appellant’s Memorandum of fact and law (MFL) at paras. 78-81. The Minister argues that the reasoning of the Court in Spasoja and its conclusion as to the role of RAD should be followed, because it preserves the integrity of the RPD process: Appellant’s MFL at para. 30. The Minister does not dispute that less deference, if any, would be owed in the relatively rare cases where the RAD holds a hearing pursuant to subsection 110(6) of the IRPA (see paragraph 110(6)(c) in particular). It is in that sense only that the appeal is a hybrid appeal in the Minister’s view.
[40] On the other hand, the respondents and the interveners support the judge’s findings at paragraphs 54 and 55 of his reasons. In fact, in their view, a finding of error should not be a pre-condition for all appellate intervention by the RAD: Respondents’ MFL at para. 51.
[41] A few comments as to how I approached my task and what I consider necessary to include in my reasons are also warranted. In Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Tran, 2015 FCA 237 at para. 45, 392 D.L.R. (4th) 351, I indicated that it is sometimes difficult to apply the standard of reasonableness to pure questions of statutory interpretation, and that further guidance from the Supreme Court would be welcomed as to the type of analysis that courts should perform in such cases.
[42] The parties referred to the conflicting approaches and conclusions reached by Federal Court judges on the issue before us. Thus, to ensure that I understood the various approaches to interpreting the relevant provisions that were adopted below, I reviewed all such Federal Court decisions, as well as a good sample of RAD decisions dealing with the issue (especially following the judge’s decision in the present case).
[43] However, I gather from the Supreme Court decision in Kanthasamy that there is no real need for me to engage