Evidence of meeting #29 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Acting Chief Administrator, Office of the Chief Adminsitrator, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court of Canada
Is that the case, Wayne?
9:35 a.m.
Acting Registrar, Registry Branch, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court of Canada
I believe so. I believe you're correct.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Acting Chief Administrator, Office of the Chief Adminsitrator, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court of Canada
Correct.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
The only difference I can see between the two levels is that the RAD provisions allow for the appeal division to substitute its own decision, which would not be available to the Federal Court. Is that right?
9:35 a.m.
Acting Registrar, Registry Branch, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court of Canada
That is correct.
There is one aspect you didn't mention, and that's paragraph 171(c), where the decision of the panel of the RAD would have the same precedential value that the decision of an appeal court has for a trial court.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Acting Registrar, Registry Branch, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court of Canada
It's not different. It's one of the things you failed to mention. In your analysis, the RAD would potentially provide a precedential value to the lower level.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
The other point is this. A number of grounds set out in the Federal Court of Appeal are actually broader or more extensive than the ones set out in RAD. Would you agree with me?
9:35 a.m.
Acting Registrar, Registry Branch, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court of Canada
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Wouldn't it be more cost-efficient to elongate or amend the Federal Court provisions that already exist to incorporate some of the things that we have in RAD, rather than duplicate the process in some respects?
9:35 a.m.
Acting Registrar, Registry Branch, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court of Canada
I wouldn't know. I wouldn't be able to comment on that unless there were some specific provisions we could analyze.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
In addition, if we were going to leave that alone, on the same grounds we're talking about, anyone who appealed to RAD could also appeal after the RAD decision to the Federal Court on the basis of the Federal Court provisions to provide another ground of appeal, so to speak, or another avenue of appeal. Is that right?
9:35 a.m.
Acting Registrar, Registry Branch, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court of Canada
It's a judicial review, yes.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
We've in essence created yet another level of determination, which would extend or add to the length of time it would take to determine a refugee application if a person were to use all available avenues.
9:35 a.m.
Acting Registrar, Registry Branch, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court of Canada
That's potentially correct.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
In the present Federal Court of Appeal, when you deal with the pre-removal risk assessment issue and there is new evidence, does the Federal Court of Appeal deal with those kinds of issues, new evidence that may be entertained in a pre-removal risk assessment situation?
9:35 a.m.
Acting Registrar, Registry Branch, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court of Canada
In a pre-removal risk assessment situation, a party has a procedural right for any administrative decision to seek judicial review of that decision. If there is a pre-removal assessment decision, the party would have the right to seek an application for leave for a judicial review.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
On that kind of an application, if new evidence comes forward that is negative to the refugee, they can apply through the judicial process in the Federal Court of Appeal for a determination. Is that correct?
9:35 a.m.
Acting Registrar, Registry Branch, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court of Canada
To the Federal Court, yes.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Acting Registrar, Registry Branch, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court of Canada
Yes, to seek application for leave for a judicial review.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
They can also do it on an application for humanitarian and compassionate grounds, can't they?
9:35 a.m.
Acting Registrar, Registry Branch, Courts Administration Service, Federal Court of Canada
I believe that's correct as well.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Isn't it more than they can do under the RAD provisions, because it doesn't allow for new evidence?