Federal Court

Immigration and Citizenship

Refugee protection


Refugee Protection Division’s treatment of evidence was unreasonable

Applicant N was Ukrainian citizen, who claimed that he faced persecution due to his bisexuality and relationship with another man. N was beaten by other men, causing him to leave for Canada to study in 2015. N returned to Ukraine to move in with his partner, but was again attacked when he tried to save his partner from being attacked. N returned to Canada, and later filed refugee claim. Refugee Protection Division (RPD) accepted likelihood of persecution based on sexual orientation, in Ukraine. However, RPD found N’s evidence lacking in credibility. RPD ruled that claim was manifestly unfounded. N applied for judicial review of RPD decision. Application granted. RPD made improper credibility findings, based on phone evidence which it used to determine that N’s relationship was not genuine. N clarified evidence when asked, but was not asked about details that could have further clarified matter for RPD. RPD made no finding as to authenticity of medical note, but determined that medical evidence was fraudulent. Proper consideration of this evidence could have changed outcome of application. N had reasonable explanation for amending his evidence, but this was not accepted by RPD. As whole, RPD’s treatment of evidence was unreasonable.

Nagornyak v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 680, 2017 FC 215, Cecily Y. Strickland J. (F.C.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is the highest number of lawyer candidates in the upcoming Law Society of Ontario Bencher election since 1995, but turn-out is declining. Do you think voting should be mandatory for all lawyers and paralegals in this election?