# Canadian Refugee Procedure/RAD Rules Part 1 - Rules Applicable to Appeals Made by a Person Who Is the Subject of an Appeal
## RAD Rules - Part 1

The text of the relevant rules reads:

## RAD Rule 2 - Filing appeal
### RAD Rule 2(1): The requirement to provide three copies of the written notice of appeal has been waived

The Practice Notice: Exchange of documents through Canada Post epost Connect™ to the Refugee Appeal Division states that multiple copies of documents do not need to be submitted where required in the Rules.

### RAD Rule 2(4): The notice of appeal must be received by the Division within the time limit for filing an appeal set out in the Regulations

The time limit for filing an appeal is set out in s. 159.91 of the Regulation:
For more context to this part of the regulations, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/IRPR s. 159.91: Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division. For more details about requesting an extension of time to file or perfect, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RAD Rules Part 1 - Rules Applicable to Appeals Made by a Person Who Is the Subject of an Appeal#RAD Rule 6: Extension of Time.

## RAD Rule 3 - Perfecting appeal and content of appellant's record
### Rule 3(1): The requirement to provide two copies of the appellant's record has been waived

The Practice Notice: Exchange of documents through Canada Post epost Connect™ to the Refugee Appeal Division states that multiple copies of documents do not need to be submitted where required in the Rules.

### Rule 3(3)(b): The appellant's record must contain all or part of the transcript of the Refugee Protection Division hearing if the appellant wants to rely on the transcript in the appeal

Rule 3(3)(b) provides that the appellant's record must contain all or part of the transcript of the Refugee Protection Division hearing if the appellant wants to rely on the transcript in the appeal, together with a declaration, signed by the transcriber, that includes the transcriber’s name and a statement that the transcript is accurate. That said, the Practice Notice: Exchange of documents through Canada Post epost Connect™ to the Refugee Appeal Division states that the RAD removes (waives) the requirement in the rules for signatures on documents and RAD forms submitted in support of an appeal.
The intent of this rule is that a transcript of relevant portions of the hearing will be provided by the appellant if the appellant wants to rely on a transcript on appeal. The court held in Abdi v. Canada that, even in a situation where the appellant did not have the means to have a transcript prepared, the RAD was not obliged to assist the appellant in meeting this requirement by producing and providing a transcript itself.
The IRB has a policy and objective of producing transcripts for all hearings that last more than two hours. The court held in Abdi v. Canada that it was procedurally fair for the RAD to rely on such a transcript which had not been provided to the appellant. This was so as the evidence in question was the applicant’s own and he had been provided with a recording of that testimony. While members of the public are not legally entitled to transcripts and documents from RAD proceedings, available transcripts are shared when requested by appellants and their counsel. That said, while the RAD produces transcripts for all English hearings, as of 2022 it did so for only 37.5% of French hearings. See also: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing#The Board is not obliged to provide a transcript of an RPD proceeding, regardless of whether or not a recording of the proceeding was made.
Rule 3(3)(b) is to be read in conjunction with Rule 3(3)(g)(ii) which provides that the appellant may, as an alternative to relying on a transcript, point to specific sections or an "audio or other electronic recordings of the Refugee Protection Division hearing".

### Rule 3(3)(c): The appellant's record must contain any documents that the Refugee Protection Division refused to accept as evidence, during or after the hearing, if the appellant wants to rely on the documents in the appeal

RAD Rule 3(3)(c) provides that the appellant's record must contain any documents that the Refugee Protection Division refused to accept as evidence, during or after the hearing, if the appellant wants to rely on the documents in the appeal. These documents need not be assessed as new evidence in accordance with subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Instead, the RAD is to consider whether the RPD was correct to exclude them. If they were improperly excluded, then the RAD may consider them.
For documents provided to the RPD at or before a hearing, but not within required timelines, the relevant RPD rule is number 36: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 31-43 - Documents#RPD Rule 36 - Use of undisclosed documents. For documents provided after a hearing, but prior to the RPD rendering its decision, the relevant RPD rule is number 43: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 31-43 - Documents#RPD Rule 43 - Additional documents provided as evidence after a hearing.
Placing the onus on the appellant to provide such documents in the appellant's record relates to RAD Rule 21(3)(c), which provides that the Refugee Protection Division record is to contain all documentary evidence that the Refugee Protection Division accepted as evidence, during or after the hearing, but that it need not contain evidence that was not accepted. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RAD Rules Part 3 - Rules Applicable to All Appeals#RAD Rule 21: Refugee Protection Division Record. For example, the RPD states that if an application to admit late disclosure is refused, a claimant "will have to proceed with your hearing without the use of the late disclosure" and the RPD states that it will return these documents to the party "if they arrived by mail, courier, fax, or in-person delivery​ but will dispose of them if they were submitted electronically", indicating that a copy of such rejected documents is not retained for referral to the RAD as part of the RPD record. If the rejected documents are not before it, the RAD cannot review whether the RPD was correct to exclude the evidence.

### Rule 3(3)(e): The appellant's record must contain any documentary evidence that the appellants want to rely on in the appeal, but this is subject to rules on admitting new evidence

Rule 3(3)(e) provides that the appellant's record must contain any documentary evidence that the appellants want to rely on in the appeal, but where such evidence is new evidence, it must be admissible as per IRPA s. 110: Canadian Refugee Procedure/110-111 - Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division#IRPA Section 110(4)-(5): Evidence that may be presented. The phrase "documentary evidence" implies that where "evidence" is used without modification elsewhere in the rules, it can include both documentary evidence and non-documentary evidence, such as oral evidence. See also RAD Rule 24, which refers to "written evidence", a subset of all "evidence": Canadian Refugee Procedure/RAD Rules Part 3 - Rules Applicable to All Appeals#RAD Rule 24: Specialized Knowledge.
All evidence that the RPD accepted as evidence is part of the RPD record and will be provided to the RAD by the RPD under rule 21 of the RAD Rules. Therefore, an appellant does not have to include this evidence in their appellant's record.

### Rule 3(3)(f) provides that an appellant's record must contain any law, case law or other legal authority that the appellant wants to rely on in the appeal, but citations to Canadian court decisions suffice

Rule 3(3)(f) provides that an appellant's record must contain "any law, case law or other legal authority that the appellant wants to rely on in the appeal". While new evidence must be in printed form, not a simple reference to an Internet link, this principle does not apply to the submission of Canadian caselaw as a legal authority. Copies of Canadian court decisions generally do not need be appended to an appellant's memorandum. In practice, a citation suffices. This is summarized as follows by the Board in the Appellant's Guide that it publishes: "For legal cases that are publicly available, you can provide references and links (for example, links from CanLII) instead of hard copies. If the case is not publicly available (for example, because it is from a foreign jurisdiction or it is very recent), provide a hard copy with the relevant portions highlighted." This flows from the requirement that cases should be decided based on all of the law that binds the Board and the reasonable expectation of parties that judicial notice will be taken of published decisions in Canadian judicial proceedings. That said, judicial notice cannot be taken of foreign law and so copies of foreign laws or judgments that a party wishes to rely on should normally be appended. See further: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 22 - Specialized Knowledge#IRPA s. 170: The Division may take notice of any facts that may be judicially noticed.

### Rules 3(3)(e) and 3(3)(f): Legal authorities may be distinguished from evidence that an appellant wants to rely on

Rule 3(3)(f) provides that an appellant's record must contain "any law, case law or other legal authority that the appellant wants to rely on in the appeal". This rule is to be distinguished from Rule 3(3)(e), which provides that an appellant's record must also contain "any documentary evidence that the appellant wants to rely on in the appeal". In this way, legal authorities may be considered distinct from documentary evidence that an appellant seeks to rely on. While some documents clearly fall into one category or the other, often whether a document is evidence or a legal authority is ambiguous and may depend on the proposition which the appellant aims to establish from the document. As noted in Basra v. Canada, the hallmark of a document properly admitted pursuant to Rule 3(3)(f) is that it is either an authority in law or else it interprets the law. Where an applicant is referring to a document as objective evidence in support of their factual assertions, the document is properly considered under Rule 3(3)(e) and the accompanying new evidence provisions of the Act. Some examples which highlight this dichotomy follow:
* UNHCR guidelines may be considered legal authority or evidence: The Federal Court accepted in Osemwenkhae v. Canada that "UNHCR Guidelines are not new documents in the sense of being new evidence but rather should have been introduced as doctrinal or legal support for [the appellant's] position." But see Valdez v. Canada which held it was reasonable for the RAD to consider the UNHCR Handbook under the new evidence framework of subsection 110(4) of the IRPA in a circumstance where the appellant had argued that the Handbook was new evidence justifying an oral hearing. In Sharma v. Canada the court held that a UN High Commissioner for Refugees Guidance note was properly considered as new evidence, not a legal authority.
* Prior cases may be considered legal authority or evidence: Prior tribunal decisions legal cases, and decisions of international bodies such as the United Nations Committee Against Torture may be considered legal authorities and not evidence. However, in Ismailov v. Canada the Appellant submitted a decision from the European Court of Human Rights. The RAD declined to admit it because it found that it was not bound by jurisprudence outside of Canada. The court concluded that this was in error because the decision was submitted as evidence, not a legal authority:In my view, the fact that the RAD is not bound by jurisprudence outside of Canada is irrelevant. The Applicant did not submit this evidence for a point of law, but rather for its factual findings regarding the country conditions in Uzbekistan. In other words, this decision formed part of the new evidence that was submitted to the RAD. Thus, the RAD erred by dismissing it out of hand and refusing to determine whether the decision satisfied the test for new evidence.But see the following commentary to RPD Rule 43, including a case concluding that under that rule past tribunal decisions should not be considered evidence: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Documents#Rule 43 applies to evidence, not submissions, caselaw, or other tribunal decisions. It is unclear how to reconcile the above decision with the Federal Court's conclusion in Smith v. Canada that importing a finding of fact from another decision was “clearly not acceptable” because a finding of fact must be based on the evidence submitted to the decision maker: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing#The Board must not rely on evidence that is not on the record or otherwise properly available to the Member.
* Foreign law is considered to be a question of fact: Foreign law is considered by Canada's legal system to be a question of fact. In contrast, the content of Canada’s international legal obligations has usually been held to be a question of law.
* Reports discussing and critiquing IRB decisions may be considered legal authority or evidence: In Basra v. Canada, the appellant submitted a 2004 report entitled Comprehensive Discussion of the Internal Flight Option for Punjabi Sikh Survivors of Political Rape and other Forms of Institutionalized Violence to the RAD as a legal authority. The RAD concluded that the document was not admissible as jurisprudence. The Federal Court upheld this decision, concluding that the content in the report was "factual in nature, containing discussion and opinion based on research and experience" and noting that the document was "analogous to many documents typically contained in a national documentation package" and that in his appeal submissions the applicant referred to the document as objective evidence in support of his factual assertions and not as jurisprudence or expressions of law.
* Legal texts: Legal texts written by Canadian scholars on, inter alia, immigration law, properly constitute legal doctrine.
* Legislative instruments: In Sharma v. Canada, the RAD found that “legal authority” in Rule 3(3)(f) may include Canadian Orders in Council and other such legislative instruments.

### Rule 3(3)(g)(i): The appellant's record must contain a memorandum with submissions regarding the errors that are the grounds of the appeal

Rule 3(3)(g) provides that the appellant's record must contain a memorandum that includes full and detailed submissions regarding (i) the errors that are the grounds of the appeal, and (ii) where the errors are located in the reasons for the Refugee Protection Division's decision or in a recording of the Refugee Protection Division hearing. A corollary of the obligation to identify such errors is that an applicant cannot reasonably fault the RAD for not going beyond the grounds of appeal or for not providing extensive reasons regarding the grounds of appeal that the applicant did not previously challenge. Appellants before the RAD that fail to specify where and how the RPD erred do so at their peril. However, it also cannot be presumed that unchallenged findings are correct. Such a presumption would interfere with the RAD’s statutory obligations. As the court held in Derxhia v. Canada, "While it may be unwise for an appellant to leave credibility determinations by the RPD unchallenged, this does not relieve the RAD of its role in determining the correctness of the RPD’s decision in all relevant matters." These Rules requiring errors to be identified are procedural and cannot circumscribe the broad decision-making authority of the RAD as described in sections 110 and 111 of the legislation. Special care should be taken before concluding that a self-represented appellant did not challenge an issue. Nwankwo v. Canada is illustrative:
   I acknowledge that the actual grounds of appeal relied upon by the Applicant did not explicitly challenge the IFA. However, read in whole, the Applicant did submit that he would be subjected to the types of harms that would make him a person in need of protection in the entire country under s 97(1) of the IRPA, which, as the RPD acknowledged (at para 29) is encompassed by the first branch of the IFA test. And, as the RAD knew, the Applicant was self-represented. Thus, the RAD should have considered his submissions in that light.
See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/110-111 - Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division#The jurisdiction of the RAD is to hear appeals on a question or law, of fact, or of mixed law and fact against a decision of the RPD. That said, the RAD also cannot be expected to examine every piece of evidence and try to draw out arguments that could support an asylum claim.
Where the grounds of appeal are not sufficiently clear in accordance with paragraph 3(3)(g) of the RAD Rules, it is open to the RAD to include in its analysis only the most intelligible submissions. Furthermore, it is not sufficient for an appellant "to throw cases against the wall in the hope that they will stick, or to leave to the reviewing court the task of establishing somehow the connection. The connection of the dots on the page must be done by those who suggest some connection. ... [A] collection of cases in search of some connection with the facts of this case did not result in a cogent and persuasive argument without an articulation of what that connection may be."
The memorandum with submissions discussed in subrule (g) is to be distinct from the documentary evidence that the appellant wants to rely on in the hearing discussed in subrule (e). That said, at times there may be overlap between these. Where an appellant submits an affidavit on appeal that is not new evidence pursuant to subsection 110(4) of the IRPA, but is instead more akin to submissions on the errors that are the grounds of the appeal or arguments as to why the other items of new evidence should be admitted, the RAD is entitled to treat the affidavit as submissions. Furthermore, the fact that the RAD states that it is treating such an affidavit as submissions does not mean that the RAD errs by referring to the material in the appellant's affidavit as an example of an inconsistency in the statements provided by the appellant that can properly detract from the appellant's credibility.
See also:
* Canadian Refugee Procedure/The Board's inquisitorial mandate#The Refugee Appeal Division must independently assess claims
* Canadian Refugee Procedure/The Board's inquisitorial mandate#A panel has a duty to consider all potential grounds for a refugee claim that arise on the evidence

### Rule 3(3)(g)(iii): The appellant's record must contain a memorandum with submissions regarding how any documentary evidence referred to in paragraph (e) relates to the appellant

The requirement in RAD Rule 3(3)(g)(iii) that the appellant's record contain a memorandum with submissions regarding how any newly submitted documentary evidence relates to the appellant has been interpreted as a requirement that the appellant establish its relevance. In the words of the Federal Court of Appeal, this is a basic condition for the admissibility of any piece of evidence, and it would be difficult to imagine the introduction of new evidence being somehow exempt from this criterion. Indeed, subparagraphs 3(3)(g)(iii) and 5(2)(d)(ii) of the Refugee Appeal Division Rules, SOR/2012-257 implicitly allude to this by providing that both the appellant’s memorandum and memorandum in reply must include full and detailed submissions regarding how any documentary evidence the appellant wishes to rely on not only meets the requirements of subsection 110(4), but also “how that evidence relates to the appellant” (“la façon dont ils sont liés à l’appelant”). See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/110-111 - Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division#Additional Raza/Singh factors.

## RAD Rule 4 - Intervention by the Minister
### Rule 4: To intervene in an appeal the Minister must provide a written notice of intervention

Rule 4(1) provides that if it wants to intervene in an appeal, the Minister must provide a written notice of intervention, together with any documentary evidence that the Minister wants to rely on in the appeal. Where the Minister attempts to provide documentary evidence or argument without such a written notice of intervention that meets the requirements of RAD Rule 4, the Division has in the past refused to accept the document.

## RAD Rule 6 - Extension of Time
### The Regulation sets out the process for extending the time limit for filing an appeal

RAD Rule 2(4) provides that the notice of appeal provided under this rule must be received by the Division within the time limit for filing an appeal set out in the Regulations. Section 159.91(2) of that regulation sets out the criteria to be granted an extension to that time limit:
In short, this provision contains three elements:
* It must not be possible for the appeal to be filed and perfected within the time limits of, respectively, 15 and 30 calendar days. Under this element, the party seeking an extension of time must provide an explanation for the delay and must show a continuing intention to appeal during the delay.
* An extension must be for the number of days necessary in the circumstances. This requirement suggests that the delay should be as short as possible or, in other words, that every day of delay should be justified. The reference to "circumstances" implies an individualised assessment of the circumstances in each particular request for an extension of time.
* Any extension must be for reasons of fairness and natural justice. Jurisprudence has established four factors to be considered in the applications for extension of time made before courts or administrative tribunals. These factors are not exhaustive and other factors may be considered, such as, for example, the complexity of an appeal, a factor mentioned in RAD Rule 6(7). All of the factors do not have to be met. The appropriate weight must be given to each factor in the context of a particular case. The four factors are to be applied in order to determine whether fairness and natural justice, in the circumstances, require an extension of time for a particular number of days:
   a) there was and is a continuing intention on the part of the party presenting the motion to pursue the appeal;
   b) the subject matter of the appeal discloses an arguable case;
   c) there is a reasonable explanation for the defaulting parties delay; and
   d) there is no prejudice to the other party in allowing the extension.
For more context to this part of the regulations, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/IRPR s. 159.91: Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division. See also the practice notice on extending the time limit for perfecting an appeal. This practice notice sets out that informal requests are no longer acceptable and that the application to extend the time limit to perfect an appeal must include the Appellant's Record.

## RAD Rule 7 - Decision without further notice
### Rule 7 provides that the Division may, without further notice, decide the appeal, but further notice is required if the appeal is decided on a new ground

Rule 7 of the RAD Rules provides that, where a hearing is not warranted, the RAD may, “without further notice to the appellant and to the Minister, decide an appeal on the basis of the materials provided.” The Federal Court has recognized that, notwithstanding this rule, deciding an appeal on a new ground without first giving notice to the parties that the issue is in play can breach the requirements of procedural fairness. The RAD has a mandate to wholly appreciate the record before them and reach their own conclusions on review. The duty of procedural fairness requires the RAD to provide the appellant with an opportunity to make submissions when considering an issue that was not raised by the appellant or by the RPD. Justice Hughes expressed this exception to the general rule as follows in Husian v Canada: “The point is that if the RAD chooses to take a frolic and venture into the record to make further substantive findings, it should give some sort of notice to the parties and give them an opportunity to make submissions.” When determining whether notice should have been provided, panels have considered whether an applicant could have made submissions on the issue or whether they were insufficiently aware of it earlier. Furthermore, where the Division raises a new issue, the Minister should be given notice of the new issue, even if they are not a party to the proceeding.

### When may the RAD raise a new issue?

The RAD is obliged to conduct an independent review of the case, focusing on the errors identified by the appellant. However, the RAD has a broad discretion to raise new issues where doing so will bring finality to an issue. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/110-111 - Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division#The RAD may raise new issues that are not raised in the appeal submissions.

### What is a new issue requiring notice?

A new issue can be identified as one that (1) is legally and factually distinct from the grounds of appeal raised by the parties and cannot reasonably be said to stem from the issues raised on appeal, and (2) is an issue where the RPD made no determination. If the RAD will decide a matter on a ground that is a new issue, including by making additional substantive findings based on the record, which were not addressed in the RPD decision and not raised by the parties on appeal, then procedural fairness requires that notice and an opportunity to make submissions be given.
Essentially, this protects persons who are the subject of an appeal and the Minister against unfair surprise. As in all matters of procedural fairness, the ultimate question remains whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond. Notice should be provided whenever new or additional arguments, reasoning, or analysis unknown to the parties is being considered by the Division. Furthermore an appellant should be advised if an issue already decided in their favour by the RPD is being reconsidered.
This said, “issues that are rooted in or are components of an existing issue” are not “new issues” necessitating such a notice. Furthermore, where an RPD finding is not challenged on appeal, then the RAD may uphold such non-challenged findings. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RAD Rules Part 1 - Rules Applicable to Appeals Made by a Person Who Is the Subject of an Appeal#Rule 3(3)(g)(i): The appellant's record must contain a memorandum with submissions regarding the errors that are the grounds of the appeal.
Whether or not the issue was explicitly raised as an issue at the beginning of the RPD hearing by that panel is not determinative. Indeed, some issues are said to always be at issue in every claim, and need not be identified as a distinct issue by the RPD: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing#Claimants have an expectation that a claim will only be rejected on the basis of a legal issue that a panel has identified as being at issue. Regardless of the fact that certain issues, such as prospective risk, are central issues in any refugee protection claim, if the RPD did not make a clear and definitive finding on the issue, and it was not one of the grounds of appeal, then it would be unfair for a panel to dismiss a claim on that basis without providing notice.
Categories of cases in which the Board may err if notice is not provided include:
* Where the Board considers new evidence. Where new evidence is being considered on appeal, notice should be provided. For example, this applies where new country condition documentation comes up after the appeal has been perfected, such as a new NDP that is relevant. Specifically, the RAD is required to disclose the version of the NDP it used if the following two factors are present: (1) the version of the NDP that the RAD used to make its decision was not available or accessible to the public when the refugee protection claimant perfected their appeal and made their submissions, and (2) the most recent information in this version of the NDP is sufficiently different, novel and significant and shows a change in the general country conditions. For more discussion and nuance on this, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The Board's inquisitorial mandate#The Board should consider the most up-to-date country conditions evidence, and Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing#Disclosure rights and obligations for the Board, and also Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 31-43 - Documents#The panel should consider the most recent National Documentation Package. However, because the RAD has fact-finding authority, and may make additional findings or even different findings than the RPD in assessing the evidence, doing so does not in and of itself elevate such findings to a new issue or trigger a breach of procedural fairness. Referring to additional evidence in the record which supports the conclusions reached by the RPD does not amount to examining a "new question".
* Where the Board considers a new legal issue. The RAD must provide notice where it wants to make a finding on an issue where the RPD did not make a clear and definitive finding on the issue and it was not among the grounds of appeal advanced by the parties. This includes where the RAD makes a finding on state protection, IFA, lack of prospective risk, a reconsideration of a claimant's credibility, and exclusion. This applies whenever the RPD did not make a clear and definitive finding on the issue and the issue was not raised in the appeal memoranda of the parties, regardless of whether the issue was canvassed by the RPD at the hearing or not raised at the initial hearing at all, and regardless of whether the issue was not discussed by the RPD at all or was mentioned in passing in the RPD's reasons but not relied upon. The fact that the Minister provides a Notice of Intervention to the RAD and the person who is the subject of the appeal, along with arguments regarding an issue, suffices as "notice" that that issue is "in play". See also: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing#Claimants have an expectation that a claim will only be rejected on the basis of a legal issue that a panel has identified as being at issue.
* Where the Board makes additional substantive findings on a legal issue that is at issue in the appeal. In some circumstances, the Division should provide notice before making additional substantive findings on a legal issue that is at issue in the appeal, even though the issue was raised in the parties' appeal memoranda. That said, this area of the law is unclear and there are decisions that offer conflicting conclusions on the necessity of notice in such circumstances. Some discussion of the cases follows:
** Credibility: While the RAD cannot raise a new issue without notice to the parties, it is entitled to make independent findings of credibility against an appellant without questioning the claimant or providing a further opportunity to make submissions where the following criteria are met: a) credibility was at issue before the RPD; b) the RPD’s findings are contested on appeal; c) the credibility concerns from the RAD are linked to the applicant’s appeal submissions; and d) the RAD’s findings arise from the evidentiary record. For example, in Popoola v. Canada the court upheld a RAD decision which considered two additional credibility concerns (regarding the applicants’ US visas and the alleged presence of a neighbour during a break-in at their home) in a case where credibility was already at issue. Similarly, in Sun v. Canada, the court found no breach of procedural fairness where the RAD raised new credibility issues about alleged inconsistencies in the claimant's evidence that had not been considered by the RPD and for which she was not given notice. The court held that the RAD was entitled to find an additional basis to question the applicant’s credibility using the record that was before the RPD. This is so even where the document that the RAD relies upon to make such a credibility finding is "[one] out of 125 items in the National Documentation Package". In Ahmed v. Canada, the court upheld the RAD making an additional negative credibility conclusion related to delay in claiming where credibility was at issue on appeal, even though delay was not discussed by the RPD and the appellant was not specifically given notice regarding delay on appeal and invited to make submissions. In Onwuanagbule v. Canada, in contrast, the court held that the RAD should provide notice where it makes negative credibility inferences with respect to areas that were not addressed either by the RPD or in the appellant’s memorandum (even where credibility is generally raised on appeal).
** Genuineness of documents: There appear to be two approaches to this in the jurisprudence:
*** One approach holds that the RAD is tasked with undertaking its own review of evidence, and may make additional or different credibility findings with respect to a document without this being a new issue that triggers a breach of procedural fairness. The RAD does not have a duty to confront a claimant about its concerns related to documents provided by the claimant where the issues raised and considered by the RAD are linked to the parties’ submissions or the RPD’s findings. For example, in Zerihaymanot v. Canada, the court held that the RAD did not raise a new issue when it commented on additional ways in which the applicant’s birth certificate did not match the samples in the NDP that were not identified by the RPD (absence of signing official’s name and language in document). This approach was also endorsed by Justice Little in Kabunga v. Canada, where the court concluded that it was not unfair to make a new finding that a document had been fabricated to advance the claim.
*** A different approach holds that notice should be provided where the RAD raises new concerns about the genuineness of evidence tendered before the RPD which had not been discussed or put to the appellant prior. The RAD cannot give further reasons based on its own review of the record, if the refugee claimant has not had the chance to address them. For example, in Porosh v. Canada the RPD had concluded that an arrest warrant submitted by the claimant was fraudulent. Justice Go held that it was an error for the RAD to provide an additional reason to buttress this finding which had not been expressly put to the appellant (that the document did not include an authorizing signature from a judge, a requirement discussed in the NDP). In Warsame v. Canada, while the RPD had raised doubt about the veracity of the aunt’s affidavit, it did not find the document to be fraudulent. The RPD's findings related to the affidavit were challenged on appeal and the RAD overturned some of the RPD’s findings on the aunt’s affidavit. However, it went further than the RPD in its negative assessment and found the document to be fraudulent. Justice Go held that in doing so, the RAD breached the duty of procedural fairness as the applicant could not have anticipated the fraudulent finding as a live issue for the RAD.
** Forward-facing risk: The courts have been prepared to accept in many cases that the forward-looking nature of the risk allegedly faced by the applicant was an inherent or implicit component of the RPD’s analysis, and that where expressly discussed in the appellant's written memorandum to the RAD, notice that a new issue was going to be considered was consequently unnecessary. Similarly, in Lopez v. Canada, the court accepted that the RAD was not required to advise the applicant that it would analyze the question of whether the alleged discrimination was sufficiently serious, repetitive or systematic to constitute persecution given that "this issue underlies the question of whether the applicant runs a prospective risk of persecution should she return to Mexico [and] it was therefore at the heart of her claim for refugee protection." However, in Mehra v. Canada, the court concluded that the risk that the Appellant faced in their city that was considered their "home base" based on the address that they used in their documents was a new issue requiring notice because the Appellant had not ever lived in that city (or their country) and the RPD had not canvassed this issue.
** IFA: Notice should be provided where the RAD considers an IFA in a city not considered by the RPD, even where the RPD had raised IFA as an issue. Furthermore, if, in the context of an IFA analysis, the RPD has accepted the means or motivation of the agents of harm, and the appellant has relied upon that finding in crafting their submissions, then the RAD may not revisit that finding without providing notice. However, notice need not be given on every chain of reasoning regarding risk in an IFA location. After all, issues that are rooted in or are components of an existing issue are not “new issues”. For example, the court has held that in considering how the passage of time may have affected an individual's risk in an IFA location, the RAD did not raise an issue that was legally and factually distinct from the issue on appeal.
** Incompetence of counsel: The Board does not err by dismissing an argument that past counsel acted incompetently where the party did not comply with the Board's practice notice on point, including having notified the former counsel. Doing so is not raising a new issue that requires independent notice. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 14-16 - Counsel of Record#3) The representative must be given notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond.
That said, there are situations where no notice is required:
* Re-weighing evidence: There is no requirement for the RAD to seek further submission when it assesses and weighs an applicant's own earlier evidence.
* Following law and jurisprudential guides: Furthermore, the RAD relying on a jurisprudential guide not mentioned by the RPD is not a new issue, even if the jurisprudential guide was designated following the RPD hearing.
* Nexus: It appears that the issue of nexus is dealt with specially. In Cardenas v. Canada, the court found that every claim for protection raises both the possibility of protection as a refugee on Convention grounds, and the possibility of surrogate protection under section 97. The issue of which, if either provision, applies to a person is always an issue before the RPD and the RAD.
* Where the newly considered issue is a component of an existing issue: Furthermore, as noted above, “issues that are rooted in or are components of an existing issue” are not “new issues” necessitating such a notice. Yet, in some cases, as discussed above, such notice is required, as when the RAD identifies an additional reason to conclude that a document was not fraudulent. When determining whether notice is required for such sub-issues, some factors can be identified:
** Was the sub-issue identified during the RPD hearing? For example, in Mayorga v. Canada, the RPD held the Applicant to be excluded from refugee protection on the basis of serious criminality. The Applicant argued that the RAD raised, for the first time in the proceedings, the question of the Applicant’s usage of an alias on e-Bay as evidence of a cover-up or a guilty mind and that this was procedurally unfair. In rejecting this argument, one of the findings that the court made was that the Applicant was questioned on the use of the alias before the RPD, and was, at that time, given the opportunity to address the source and meaning of the alias.
** Is this not the type of sub-issue for which notice is required at the RPD? See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing#Claimants should have a fair opportunity to respond to a panel's concerns.

### The notice must be sufficiently clear and specific

Any notice that is provided must be sufficiently specific such that the parties can appreciate the real concern of the RAD. For example, in Nasr v. Canada, the court concluded that the panel's notice regarding a credibility issue that the RAD was going to consider, but the RPD had not, was "vague" such that "the Applicants would have been unaware that the real concern of the RAD". As the credibility issue "had to be clearly put to [the Appellants] for response" and it was not, the court overturned the decision. In a case where no basic description of the RAD’s areas of concern with respect to credibility was provided, the court held that the applicant "was required to try to identify what these credibility concerns might be and to make anticipatory submissions, rather than providing submissions in response to specific credibility concerns." The court found that this was not a fair procedure.
The caselaw on the specificity requirements for “procedural fairness” letters in other immigration contexts may also be instructive; see, e.g., Chuen v. Canada, in which this court concluded: "The procedural fairness letter put the Applicant on notice that the Officer was concerned by his ties to the tobacco trade. However, the letter lacked specificity. It did not provide him with the opportunity to respond to the allegation that his spouse’s conviction demonstrated his participation in organized crime."
However, such notice requirements do not extend to requiring the Board to engage in an ongoing dialogue with a claimant. For example, in Savit v. Canada, the court concluded that once it had notified the applicant, it was reasonable for the RAD to point out a significant contradiction between the applicant’s new statement made in response to the notice and her testimony before the RPD. The court held that if the applicant contradicted her initial testimony in addressing the RAD’s concerns, she could not criticize the RAD for noticing this contradiction. In the court's view, the RAD was not required to give a second notice to give the applicant an opportunity to be confronted with her own contradictions; the requirement to give notice did not oblige the RAD to create a dialogue with her.
A principle that has emerged from non-refugee caselaw is that parties should have knowledge of the essential issues in dispute so they can meaningfully respond. But the right to be heard does not require a tribunal to provide the parties with a further opportunity to make legal submissions every time a legal argument arises in deliberations that was not mentioned by the parties.
See also: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing#Claimants should have a fair opportunity to respond to a panel's concerns.

### How long should a party have to respond to a notice

There does not appear to be a specific rule that sets out how long a party has to respond to a new issue notice. That said, the Refugee Appeal Division has issued a practice notice entitled providing post-perfection documents to the Minister when not a party to the appeal. It specifies that the Minister will be provided with 10 days to respond to any new documents from the person who is the subject of the appeal. As such, it could be considered that this practice notice establishes 10 days as a norm. Furthermore, it could be argued that this creates a legitimate expectation for the person who is the subject of the appeal that a claim will not be decided within 10 days of them providing a new document in a circumstance where the Minister is not a party and has not responded to the document, or otherwise waived their right to respond to it.
More generally, the IRB has a Practice Notice on Allegations Against Former Counsel which provides that a former counsel who intends to respond to allegations must provide a written response no later than ten days after receiving the allegations. This could also be seen to support a Board-wide 10-day norm to respond to a complicated new issue.
See also: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing#The Board is bound by its own undertakings where it indicates that something is not at issue, that particular evidence is unnecessary, or that a particular procedure will be followed.

### The fact that the panel provides notice of a new issue does not mean that the reasons must discuss it

The fact that the panel provides notice of a new issue does not mean that the reasons must discuss it. In Rodriguez v. Canada, the RPD rejected the claim on the determinative issue of credibility. On appeal, the RAD gave notice of the new issue of IFA, but ultimately dismissed the appeal on the determinative issue of credibility. The Federal Court held that, in the circumstances, there was no need for the RAD to consider IFA. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing#The Board is bound by its own undertakings where it indicates that something is not at issue, that particular evidence is unnecessary, or that a particular procedure will be followed.

## References

* 1 2 3 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Practice Notice: Exchange of Documents through Canada Post epost Connect to the Refugee Appeal Division, ​​​​​June 15, 2020, <https://irb.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/procedures/Pages/notice-documents-epost-connect.aspx> (Accessed September 16, 2022).
* 1 2 Abdi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1322 (CanLII), at para 36, <https://canlii.ca/t/k0gnw#par36>, retrieved on 2023-10-12.
* 1 2 Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Final Investigation Report dated June 2023, 2022-0101-EI (2022-0330-CAS and 2022-0798-CAS).
* ↑ X (Re), 2020 CanLII 124039 (CA IRB), at para 5, <https://canlii.ca/t/jn804#par5>, retrieved on 2023-09-05.
* ↑ X (Re), 2021 CanLII 140071 (CA IRB), <https://canlii.ca/t/jlvh5>, retrieved on 2022-12-06.
* ↑ X (Re), 2014 CanLII 93098 (CA IRB), at para 14, <https://canlii.ca/t/gkb49#par14>, retrieved on 2023-09-05.
* ↑ Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Questions and answers: Practice Notice on Procedural Issues, Date modified: 2024-09-09 <https://irb.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/procedures/Pages/rpd-pnpi-qa.aspx>, at question 23.
* ↑ X (Re), 2014 CanLII 93098 (CA IRB), at para 13, <https://canlii.ca/t/gkb49#par13>, retrieved on 2023-09-05.
* ↑ Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Important Instructions Concerning your Appellant's Record to the Refugee Appeal Division of the IRB, Date modified: 2020-09-18, <https://irb.gc.ca/en/refugee-appeals/Pages/RadSar3010Instruct.aspx> (Accessed September 19, 2023), at footnote 8.
* ↑ Iribhogbe v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 501 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jnm47>.
* ↑ Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Appellant's Guide, April 2017, <https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/refugee-appeals/Pages/RefAppGuide.aspx>.
* ↑ Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) et al. v. The Canadian Council for Refugees et al., 2021 FCA 72, para. 125, overturned at the Supreme Court of Canada, though not on this point.
* ↑ Kovac v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 497 at para 10.
* ↑ J G Castel, Canadian Conflict of Laws, 4th ed (Toronto: Butterworths, 1997) at 7-1.
* 1 2 3 Basra v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2023 FC 707 (CanLII), at para 15, <https://canlii.ca/t/jxd95#par15>, retrieved on 2023-07-06.
* ↑ Osemwenkhae v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 503 (CanLII), at para 7, <https://canlii.ca/t/jnlcq#par7>, retrieved on 2022-05-04.
* ↑ Davila Valdez c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2022 CF 596 (CanLII), au para 17, <https://canlii.ca/t/jnwwq#par17>, consulté le 2022-05-13.
* ↑ Sharma v. Canada (Immigration and Citizenship), 2024 FC 1444 (CanLII), at para 4, <https://canlii.ca/t/k6sx4#par4>, retrieved on 2024-10-11.
* ↑ Mansour v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 846 (CanLII), at para 26, <https://canlii.ca/t/jprtr#par26>, retrieved on 2022-07-14.
* ↑ Sami-Ullah v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 1525 (CanLII), at para 26, <https://canlii.ca/t/jt2kd#par26>, retrieved on 2023-06-27.
* 1 2 Basra v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2023 FC 707 (CanLII), at para 9, <https://canlii.ca/t/jxd95#par9>, retrieved on 2023-07-06.
* ↑ Ismailov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 967 (CanLII), at para 67, <https://canlii.ca/t/gkrb5#par67>, retrieved on 2022-09-09.
* ↑ Ismailov v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 967 (CanLII), at para 67, <https://canlii.ca/t/gkrb5#par67>, retrieved on 2022-09-09.
* ↑ Hunt v T&N PLC, [1993] 4 SCR 289 at 306; J G Castel, Canadian Conflict of Laws, 4th ed (Toronto: Butterworths, 1997) at 155.
* ↑ See Jose Pereira E Hijos, SA v Canada (Attorney General) (1996), 126 FTR 167; Ielovski v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] FC 739 at para 7.
* ↑ Sharma v. Canada (Immigration and Citizenship), 2024 FC 1444 (CanLII), at para 16, <https://canlii.ca/t/k6sx4#par16>, retrieved on 2024-10-11.
* ↑ Sharma v. Canada (Immigration and Citizenship), 2024 FC 1444 (CanLII), at para 4, <https://canlii.ca/t/k6sx4#par4>, retrieved on 2024-10-11.
* ↑ Shalaiev, Dmytro v. M.C.I. (F.C., No. IMM-6383-20), Roussel, April 1, 2022; 2022 FC 457.
* ↑ Ghauri v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 548 (CanLII), at para 34, <https://canlii.ca/t/grrdx#par34>, retrieved on 2024-11-21.
* ↑ Derxhia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2018 FC 140 (CanLII), at para 28, <https://canlii.ca/t/hqf58#par28>, retrieved on 2024-10-15.
* ↑ Al-Lamy v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1621, para. 21.
* ↑ Nwankwo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1827 (CanLII), at para 64, <https://canlii.ca/t/k7zdl#par64>, retrieved on 2024-12-12.
* ↑ Chakroun c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2023 CF 1170 (CanLII), au para 18, <https://canlii.ca/t/jzxbz#par18>, consulté le 2023-09-29.
* ↑ Ngandeu, Floriane Payo v. M.C.I. (F.C., No. IMM-8158-21), Walker, December 1, 2022, 2022 FC 1651.
* ↑ Bayode v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 18 (CanLII), at paras 21 and 28, <https://canlii.ca/t/k238x#par21>, retrieved on 2024-02-09.
* ↑ Adekunle v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 882 (CanLII), at para 20, <https://canlii.ca/t/jxtq6#par20>.
* ↑ Amani v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1535 (CanLII), at para 29, <https://canlii.ca/t/k7450#par29>.
* ↑ Adekunle v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 882 (CanLII), at para 21, <https://canlii.ca/t/jxtq6#par21>, retrieved on 2023-09-11.
* ↑ Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FCA 96 (CanLII), [2016] 4 FCR 230, at para 45, <https://canlii.ca/t/gp31b#par45>, retrieved on 2023-10-16.
* ↑ X (Re), 2017 CanLII 149353 (CA IRB), at para 6, <https://canlii.ca/t/j46pm#par6>, retrieved on 2022-04-29.
* ↑ X (Re), 2013 CanLII 76391 (CA IRB), at para 17, <https://canlii.ca/t/g23dh#par17>, retrieved on 2022-04-28.
* ↑ Canada (Attorney General) v. Pentney, 2008 FC 96, as cited and applied in the RAD context in X (Re), 2017 CanLII 149353 (CA IRB), at para 6, <https://canlii.ca/t/j46pm#par6>, retrieved on 2022-04-29.
* ↑ Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Practice notice extending time limit for perfecting an appeal, Date modified: 2020-09-18, <https://irb.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/procedures/Pages/practice-notice-extending-time-perfecting-appeal.aspx>.
* ↑ Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1259, para. 13.
* ↑ Ehondor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 1253 (CanLII), at para 13, <https://canlii.ca/t/gvqr5#par13>, retrieved on 2023-08-03.
* ↑ Husian v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 684 at para 10.
* ↑ Ojarikre v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 896 at para 22.
* ↑ Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Alazar, 2021 FC 637 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jgr79>, retrieved on 2022-04-29
* ↑ Fatime v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 594 at para 19.
* ↑ Ching v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 725 at paras 65 to 76.
* ↑ Tan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 876 at para 40.
* ↑ Husian, 2015 FC 684, para. 10 and Dalirani, 2020 FC 258, paras. 29 and 20.
* ↑ Ching v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 725, paragraph 71.
* ↑ Canadian Pacific Railway (GP Rail) Company v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 (CanLll), para. 56.
* ↑ Kwakwa, 2016 FC 600, para. 26.
* ↑ Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1491 (CanLII), at para 30, <https://canlii.ca/t/k71jl#par30>, retrieved on 2024-10-22.
* 1 2 Musthaffa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 59 (CanLII), at para 30, <https://canlii.ca/t/jmswm#par30>, retrieved on 2022-07-22.
* ↑ Shalaiev, Dmytro v. M.C.I., Roussel, April 1, 2022; 2022 FC 457.
* ↑ Yin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 564 (CanLII), at paras 25 and 31, <https://canlii.ca/t/jnsrk#par31>, retrieved on 2022-11-14.
* 1 2 3 Kaur v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1189 (CanLII), at para 17, <https://canlii.ca/t/jzzjd#par17>, retrieved on 2023-09-29.
* ↑ Zhang v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1031 (CanLII)
* ↑ Kumar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (F.C. IMM-1277-21), Lafrenière, October 21, 2022, 2022 FC 1440.
* ↑ Gadafi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1011 (CanLII), at para 24, <https://canlii.ca/t/jjblb#par24>, retrieved on 2024-03-26.
* ↑ Kwakwa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 600 at para 25.
* ↑ Xu v. Canada, 2019 FC 639, paras. 47 to 53.
* ↑ Cardenas, 2017 FC 1194 at para. 3.
* ↑ Gonzalez Jimenez, Nerio Miguel v. M.C.I. (F.C., No. IMM-3382-21), Roussel, April 5, 2022, 2022 FC 479. See also: Kaur, Daljit v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-5781-22), Rochester, September 1, 2023; 2023 FC 1189.
* ↑ Koanda, 2019 FC 169, paras. 15 to 18 and Laag, 2019 FC 890, paras. 22-23.
* ↑ Milfort-Laguere, 2019 FC 1361, para. 27.
* 1 2 Laag v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 890 (CanLII), at para 22, <https://canlii.ca/t/j19kn#par22>, retrieved on 2022-09-23.
* 1 2 Ojarikre, 2015 FC 896, paras. 22 and 23.
* ↑ Jianzhu, 2015 FC 551, para. 12 and Ching, 2015 FC 725, paras. 66, 67 and 72.
* ↑ Gondal v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1226 (CanLII), at para 17, <https://canlii.ca/t/k03bv#par17>, retrieved on 2023-09-29.
* ↑ Mchedlishvili, Vasili v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-360-21), Mosley, February 21, 2022; 2022 FC 6229.
* ↑ Salman v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 340 (CanLII), at para 34, <https://canlii.ca/t/jwf81#par34>, retrieved on 2023-08-24.
* ↑ Popoola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 555 (CanLII), at para 28, <https://canlii.ca/t/jp10h#par28>, retrieved on 2022-05-13.
* ↑ Sun v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) – (FC File number IMM-4459-21) Justice Brown, May 12, 2022; 2022 FC 710.
* ↑ Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 72 (CanLII), at para 28, <https://canlii.ca/t/jv0bc#par28>, retrieved on 2023-11-28.
* ↑ Ahmed v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 830 (CanLII), at para 31, <https://canlii.ca/t/jxm6d#par31>, retrieved on 2023-09-08.
* ↑ Palliyaralalage, 2019 FC 596; Mei Ling He, 2019 FC 1316, para. 80 and Onwuanagbule, 2020 FC 550, paras. 9 to 13.
* ↑ Gadafi v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1011 at para 24; Tan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 876 at para 40.
* ↑ Lemma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 770 (CanLII), at para 23, <https://canlii.ca/t/jpj13#par23>, retrieved on 2022-06-27.
* ↑ Zerihaymanot, Brhane Ghebrihiwet, v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-3077-21), McHaffie, April 26, 2022; 2022 FC 610.
* ↑ Kabunga v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 867 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jxsgl>.
* ↑ Ortiz, 2016 FC 180, para. 22.
* ↑ Porosh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1638 (CanLII), at para 36, <https://canlii.ca/t/k1jf9#par36>, retrieved on 2023-12-07.
* ↑ Porosh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1638 (CanLII), at para 37, <https://canlii.ca/t/k1jf9#par37>, retrieved on 2023-12-07.
* ↑ Warsame v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 630 (CanLII), at para 18, <https://canlii.ca/t/k48fr#par18>, retrieved on 2024-05-18.
* ↑ Musthaffa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 59 (CanLII), at para 31, <https://canlii.ca/t/jmswm#par31>, retrieved on 2022-07-22.
* ↑ Marquez Lopez v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 782 (CanLII), at para 30, <https://canlii.ca/t/k50nk#par30>, retrieved on 2024-06-26
* ↑ Mehra, Subesten Shyam v. M.C.I. (F.C., no. IMM-4796-21), Sadrehashemi, November 21, 2022; 2022 FC 1591.
* ↑ Boluwaji v. Canada, 2018 FC 1154, para. 20.
* ↑ Singh v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1491 (CanLII), at para 28, <https://canlii.ca/t/k71jl#par28>, retrieved on 2024-10-22.
* ↑ Sadeghi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 604 (CanLII), at para 17, <https://canlii.ca/t/jgh76#par17>, retrieved on 2024-03-26.
* ↑ Savit v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 194 (CanLII), at para 29, <https://canlii.ca/t/k00gk#par29>, retrieved on 2024-03-26.
* ↑ Jaramillo Escobar c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2023 CF 1379 (CanLII), au para 43, <https://canlii.ca/t/k0nsj#par43>, consulté le 2023-12-04.
* ↑ Nwankwo v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 786, paragraph 41.
* ↑ Feng v. Canada, 2019 FC 18, at para. 23; Mao v. Canada, 2020 FC 542, at para. 33.
* ↑ Cardenas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 1194, paragraphs 14–15 (CanLII).
* ↑ Velasquez Mayorga v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1268 (CanLII), at para 17, <https://canlii.ca/t/k6bw2#par17>, retrieved on 2024-11-08.
* ↑ Nasr v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 757 (CanLII), at para 30, <https://canlii.ca/t/jpgx9#par30>, retrieved on 2022-07-29.
* ↑ Collins v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 665 (CanLII), at para 26, <https://canlii.ca/t/k4d5z#par26>, retrieved on 2024-06-27.
* ↑ Chuen v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 690 (CanLII), at para 11, <https://canlii.ca/t/k4gjk#par11>, retrieved on 2024-08-12.
* ↑ Savit, Aleksandra v. M.C.I. (FC, IMM-1961-22), Grammond, February 9, 2023, 2023 FC 194.
* ↑ 2198806 Ontario Inc. v. The Corporation of the City of Windsor, 2024 ONSC 139 (CanLII), at para 24, <https://canlii.ca/t/k231b#par24>, retrieved on 2024-01-16.
* ↑ Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Practice Notice: Providing post-perfection documents to the Minister when not a party to the appeal, March 1, 2023, <https://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/procedures/Pages/RAD-pn-providing-post-perfection-documents.aspx>.
* ↑ Practice Notice — Allegations Against Former Counsel, signed by Richard Wex, Chairperson, August 27, 2018; in force September 10, 2018. Online: <https://irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/legal-policy/procedures/Pages/allegations-former-counsel.aspx>.
* ↑ Correa Rodriguez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 937, paragraphs 8—12 (CanLII).