Roble v. Canada ( Minister of Employment and Immigration )
IMM-4004-93
judge W.P. McKeown
2/9/94
7pp.
Application for judicial review of CRDD determination applicant, citizen of Somalia, and children, not Convention refugees- Board's reasons stating claimant first describing husband's position in "forces", but on questioning altering description to indicate police forc, not military- Holding interpreter stating may have been in error- RHO and presidint Board member checking tape with another interpreter, who stated word used by claimant only used as description of military or armed forces, never for police force- Application allowed- Board erred in stating interpreter said may have been in error- Interpreter stating made mistake- Court troubled that testimony of interpreter, who was only asked to interpret one word taken completely out of context, preferred to that of duly sworn official interpreter assigned to hearing- Had counsel objected to Board's course of action at that time, ground for overturning decision- Unnecessary to rely on possible breach of natural justice in questioning expertise or ability of official interpreter by preferring another interpreter's explanation, since Board failed to consider evidence applicant not highly educated, and in Somali culture wife often not privy to information concerning husband's occupation- May be situation similar to that in Abassi v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (IMM-1447-93, Gibson J., judgment dated 13/4/94, not yet reported) wherein holding aggressive questioning by Board contributing to applicant's evasiveness, hesitancy-Following certified as question of general public interest to be referred to Court of Appeal: "Is it within jurisdiction of CRDD to seek out and rely upon opinions received outside the hearing, on matters of interpretation of evidence, from someone other than the interpreter who is duly sworn and who acts for the duration of the hearing?"- If no, second question arising: "Does the failure of counsel to object at the time the information is made known, affect the right to recourse from the Court?".