Category: Natural Justice

The Court found that the officer ought to have disclosed a CBSA report that alleged certain funds were proceeds of crime and found a breach of natural justice. The Court provides a good analysis of what is extrinsic evidence.

The Court set aside a decision on breach of fairness. Although a fairness letter was sent to the applicant it failed to properly explain the issue so the applicant was denied the opportunity to address the concerns.

The Court of appeal found no breach of natural justice when the applicant was only disclosed the extrinsic evidence during the course of the interview noting: While extrinsic evidence must be presented to applicants to provide them with a meaningful opportunity to respond, the opportunity to respond will vary, depending upon the factual context. What is fair and reasonable in one instance may not be in another. There is no general requirement that extrinsic evidence be provided to applicants prior to an interview, or that they be given an opportunity to clarify the situation after an interview. It may be that disclosing the evidence during an interview and providing applicants with the opportunity to explain will suffice. What constitutes sufficient notice turns on the circumstances of the particular case.

The Court set aside a decision. When the application is prima facie complete if the error has concerns he has a duty to provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond.

The Court found a breach of natural justice when the officer sent a request for further information to counsel that was not the applicant's counsel on the case and as a result the updated information was not received.

The Court set aside a decision of a visa officer holding that given that there was a credibility issue fairness required that the applicant be given an opportunity to respond prior to the decision

The Court set aside a decision refusing to reopen holding that the tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction to determine whether or not there was a breach of natural justice: simply did not consider whether the "nature and importance" of the evidence presented by Mr. Seyoboka demonstrated that there had been a breach of natural justice. In my view, the Board is obliged, at least, to consider whether the applicant's evidence undercuts the basis on which the previous decision was made. This is certainly not to suggest that the Board has jurisdiction to reopen proceedings merely on the presentation of new evidence. Clearly, it does not. However, to respect the principle in Bougettaya, the Board must turn its mind to the question whether the applicant's evidence shows that the adverse finding against him or her was probably wrong.

The court set aside a refusal based on a non genuine marriage noting: [10] The Applicant and Ms. Wong submitted bank statements, bills and other correspondence showing that they shared an address, copies of their driver’s licences showing the same address as well as leases and a joint bank account statement. These documents would seem to indicate the Applicant and his sponsor do cohabit, and the Officer did not explain why she found that the T4 slips outweighed the other evidence contrary in reaching her determination. The submissions also included photos of the Applicant and Ms. Wong at different points in time and statements on their relationship. The notes taken during the interviews also show that both spouses provided roughly the same answers to the questions asked by the Officer about their relationship (Certified Tribunal Record at pages 32 to 43). I am not saying that these pieces of evidence are determinant in assessing the genuineness of the marriage, but I do find that these pieces of evidence were relevant but were not noted by the Officer and were not weighed against the others.

the court set aside a decision where the tribunal refused an adjournment the court found a breach of natural justice.

The court stayed a citizenship revocation proceeding due to delay as an abuse of process.