Griffith v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-4543-98
Campbell J.
14/7/99
17 pp.
Application for judicial review of decision by Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) applicant not Convention refugee-Applicant suffering violence from husband for more than 20 years, while living in Caribbean island of St. Vincent-Came to Canada in June 1992 on visitor's visa valid for three months-Claim for Refugee status based on state's unwillingness, inability to protect her from spousal abuse-CRDD failing to adequately take into consideration Immigration and Refugee Board's own Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution-Contrary to representation made, CRDD seriously impugned applicant's credibility giving rise to manifest breach of natural justice-Decision maker must give careful consideration to what conduct might be expected of woman living under violent conditions-No evidence Gender Guidelines followed-CRDD impugning applicant's credibility as not accepting statements respecting actions-While issue in R. v. Lavallée, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852, whether appellant killed husband in selfdefence, rationale for applying extreme care in judging actions of women suffering violence within relationships applies to present, other cases in criminal, civil context-In Lavallée, knowledge required to reach just decision introduced by expert testimony-While expert testimony might not be considered practicable, necessary in some cases, nevertheless incumbent on panel members to exhibit knowledge required, to apply it in understanding, sensitive manner when deciding domestic violence issues in order to provide fair result, avoid risk of reviewable error in reaching findings of fact, most important being finding respecting claimant's credibility-If claimant not believed, reasons must be given-In case of credibility findings with respect to women suffering domestic violence, reasons must be responsive to what is known about women in this condition-Statements of CRDD not disclosing degree of knowledge, understanding, sensitivity required to avoid finding reviewable error made in judging applicant's statements, conduct-Pitfall exposed in statements panel members' interpretation of "objective" standard used as standard against which actions of applicant judged, that is objective standard of "reasonable man" commonly used in criminal, civil law-Application allowed.