Date: 20050614
Docket: IMM-9066-04
Citation: 2005 FC 817
BETWEEN:
MUHAMMAD KAWSARUL HOWLADER
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) dated October 5, 2004, wherein the Board found the applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, not to be a Convention refugee or a "person in need of protection" as defined in sections 96 and 97 respectively of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. The Board found the applicant not to be credible.
[2] After the hearing before the Board, counsel for the applicant made a formal motion pursuant to Rule 37 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2002-228, which reads:
37. (1) A party who wants to provide a document as evidence after a hearing must make an application to the Division.
(2) The party must attach a copy of the document to the application. The application must be made under rule 44, but the party is not required to give evidence in an affidavit or statutory declaration.
(3) In deciding the application, the Division must consider any relevant factors, including:
(a) the document's relevance and probative value;
(b) any new evidence it brings to the proceedings; and
(c) whether the party, with reasonable effort, could have provided the document as required by rule 29.
37. (1) Pour transmettre, après l'audience, un document à la Section pour qu'elle l'admette en preuve, la partie en fait la demande à la Section.
(2) La partie fait sa demande selon la règle 44 et y joint une copie du document, mais elle n'a pas à y joindre d'affidavit ou de déclaration solennelle.
(3) Pour statuer sur la demande, la Section prend en considération tout élément pertinent. Elle examine notamment :
a) la pertinence et la valeur probante du document;
b) toute preuve nouvelle qu'il apporte;
c) si la partie aurait pu, en faisant des efforts raisonnables, le transmettre selon la règle 29.
[3] It is not disputed that the applicant complied with all the requirements of Rule 37, supra, and that the Board never specifically dealt with the motion. We are, therefore, facing a clear breach of procedural fairness which, given the importance and the relevancy of the documents appended to the motion, is sufficient for me to allow the application for judicial review and send the matter back to be reconsidered by a differently constituted panel of the Board.
[4] I adopt the following words of my colleague Gauthier J., in Nagulesan v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2004 FC 1382, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1690 (QL) at paragraph 17, which apply mutatis mutandis to the case at bar:
In the particular circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the applicant's letter of August 5th satisfies the requirement of Rule 37. This means that the RPD had to deal with the applicant's request. It could simply mention in its decision that, having reviewed the letter, it decided not to consider the evidence because of factors listed in Rule 37(3) or it could accept to consider the new evidence and deal with it in its decision. The RPD simply failed to deal with this matter. A breach of procedural fairness can only be overlooked if there is no doubt that it had no material effect on the decision. This is not such a case and I must set the decision aside.
[5] For all the above reasons, the application for judicial review is allowed and the matter sent back to a differently constituted panel of the Board for reconsideration.
[6] No certification.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 14, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-9066-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: MUHAMMAD KAWSARUL HOWLADER v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 10, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: June 14, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Jean-Michel Montbriand FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Michel Pépin FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Jean-Michel Montbriand FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada