Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Efremov v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )

IMM-834-94

Reed J.

2/2/95

7 pp.

Judicial review of CRDD decision applicant not Convention refugee -- Applicant alleging fear of persecution in Ukraine for political views and because Jewish -- Persecution taking form of military conscription, being forced to work in Chernobyl, high radiation area -- Board noting fundamental changes in Ukraine since independence to address prevailing anti-semitism -- Characterizing acts of anti-semitism suffered as discrimination, not persecution -- Holding no credible, trustworthy evidence evading military service -- Respondent arguing Board's decision must be found "patently unreasonable" before can be quashed -- Deference given to decisions of specialized tribunals, particularly when dealing with complex technical or social policy matters -- Closer tribunal's decision is to ordinary work of court, less deferential reviewing court likely to be -- Almost no deference shown in questions of law since Court's competence in this area often equal to, if not greater than, that of tribunal -- Deference increasing when question of mixed fact and law or mixed social policy and law -- Likely to be even greater when question one of pure technical fact -- "Patently" added to test of unreasonableness to signal rules of deference apply -- "Patently" meaning "plain" or "obvious" -- Tribunal's decision should not be overturned as unreasonable unless unreasonableness plain or obvious -- Board neither ignoring nor misconstruing evidence of anti-semitism -- Board questioning applicant's credibility -- Argument Board failed to consider whether applicant refugee sur place undercut by Board's conclusion did not believe applicant's evidence relating to military call-up -- No breach of natural justice as Board not referring to statements in first PIF but deleted from second -- Question as to appropriate standard of review for assessing Board's decision i.e. unreasonable or patently unreasonable, not certified as answer to question not determinative of appeal.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.