Federal Court

Administrative Law

Nothing untoward in member questioning and challenging submissions

Applicant born in Eritrea, but used different name on false Ethiopian passport he purchased. Applicant fled Eritrea, but deported back to Ethiopia. Applicant’s claims for refugee status rejected in United Kingdom and Norway. On advice of Ethiopian translator, applicant did not mention prior unsuccessful refugee claims in Canadian PIF. Immigration and Refugee Board Member continued hearing despite applicant’s claim of breach of natural justice in relation to translation, but re-commenced hearing de novo out of abundance of caution. Translator at hearing same translator who allegedly lied to applicant. Applicant also alleged bias on member’s part by virtue of member’s frequent interruptions. Member found no breach of natural justice because translation not tainted or inaccurate. Member concluded applicant not refugee due, in large part, to lack of identity documents. Application for judicial review dismissed. Applicant’s adjournment request not for mere adjournment, but rather to terminate proceedings due to translation issue; member provided adequate reasons for continuing hearing. Interaction between applicant’s counsel and member may have been sharp, but were directed at clarifying counsel’s submissions; nothing untoward in member questioning and challenging submissions. Member was not tainted by proceeding de novo after having heard first day of evidence; this was bare allegation without support.

Endemikael v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Jun. 18, 2013, F.C., Michael L. Phelan J., File No. IMM-11191-12) 229 A.C.W.S. (3d) 922.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?