Federal Court


Conclusion that claimant did not work for Fund unreasonable

Refugee claimant was citizen of Kingdom of Cambodia who alleged fear of persecution because of his work as activist for Cambodia Global Fund in Cambodia. Claimant alleged that he was assistant director of Cambodia Global Fund from 2007 to 2011. Board found that claimant’s career as activist with Cambodia Global Fund was unsupported by any trustworthy corroborative evidence. Board found that website for Cambodia Global Fund, mentioned in letter from its alleged Executive Director, did not exist, although claimant’s lawyer provided copies of website. On basis of apparent non-existence of website, board concluded that claimant did not work for Cambodia Global Fund. Board denied claim. Claimant applied for judicial review. Application granted. Despite concluding that website did not exist, board went on to make numerous findings on basis of exhibit that was purported to be printout of website, including finding that organization was based in United States and not in Cambodia. Board’s finding that organization was not based in Cambodia ignored substantial amount of evidence in record that pointed to existence of Cambodia Global Fund in Cambodia. Board also had before it evidence that one of claimant’s visa sponsors was Cambodia Global Fund. On basis of all evidence that was before board, its conclusion that claimant did not work for Cambodia Global Fund was unreasonable, and this conclusion tainted whole decision. Cumulative effect of board’s erroneous findings of fact that were central to board’s credibility finding rendered decision unreasonable. Decision was set aside as it did not fall within range of possible, acceptable outcomes.

Yi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Mar. 27, 2015, F.C., Danièle Tremblay-Lamer J., File No. IMM-5928-14) 252 A.C.W.S. (3d) 798.

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?