Ermina v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
Doctrine of judicial immunity applied to members of administrative tribunals-Application for judicial review of IRB's decision to grant Minister's application to reconsider and vacate Convention refugee status of applicant and two dependent children-Applicant and children, from Russia, declared Convention refugees in 1993-Subsequently discovered birth certificate, used to establish Jewish nationality, altered by chemical bleaching-At hearing, applicant attempted to call chair of IRB panel (willing to testify) that granted applicant refugee status, or to introduce chair's affidavit-IRB refused in both cases, based on doctrine of judicial immunity-Issue whether IRB erred in law in determining chair's evidence inadmissible on grounds of judicial immunity-Application dismissed-In MacKeigan v. Hickman (1988), 43 C.C.C. (3d) 287 (N.S.T.D.); affd (1988), 46 C.C.C. (3d) 191; affd (as to compellability)  2 S.C.R. 796 judges held neither competent nor compellable to testify-Doctrine of judicial immunity applying to both compellability and competency of members of administrative tribunals-Would be contrary to administration of justice and would undermine integrity of system to find otherwise-Agnew v. Ontario Assn. of Architects (1987), 64 O.R. (2d) 8 (Div. Ct.), Campbell J. found judicial immunity applied to both judges and tribunal members, reasoning instead of review by appeal or extraordinary remedy, such testimony would open door to review by cross-examination-To permit panel member to testify would defeat whole concept of judicial immunity-Would open door to re-examination of panel's decision, particularly in event of cross-examination-Decisions must be final and subject to review in ordinary channels-Without chair's testimony, IRB's decision reasonable.