Arumuganathan v. Canada ( Minister of Employment and Immigration )
IMM-1808-93
Rouleau J.
25/3/94
8 pp.
Application for judicial review of Convention Refugee Determination Division's decision applicants not Convention refugees because of negative finding of credibility-Applicant and three children, citizens of Sri Lanka, claiming refugee status on basis of race, religion, political opinion, membership in particular social group-Whether tribunal erred in law in accepting into evidence and considering Minister's factum from husband's leave application for judicial review-Such evidence submitting husband's Convention refugee claim rejected because no credible basis-Tribunal determined under Immigration Act, s. 68(3) factum could be accepted-Applicant alleging breach of rules of natural justice, particularly as Federal Court of Appeal allowed husband's application and set aside negative decision of credible basis panel in February 1993-S. 68(3) conferring on tribunal broad discretion as to what it can admit as evidence which must be credible and trustworthy: Attorney General of Canada v. Jolly, [1975] F.C. 216 (C.A.)-Board correctly determining evidence admissible pursuant to s. 68(3) and Board's duty to assess evidence and decide weight to ascribe to it, but given inflammatory nature of evidence also Board's duty to indicate in decision what weight in fact ascribed to factum-Board erred as failed to refer to evidence in decision-Application allowed-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 68(3) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 18).