Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ) v. Liyanagamage
A-703-93
Décary J.A.
1/11/94
4 pp.
Immigration and Refugee Board holding no grounds to fear persecution for Convention reason-Relying on Minister of Employment and Immigration v. Villafranca (1992), 150 N.R. 232 (F.C.A.) in support of finding respondent not providing sufficient credible or trustworthy evidence as to why not seeking protection of government-Villafranca decided after close of hearing-Also holding respondent having internal flight alternative (IFA) in Colombo-On application for judicial review, issues whether Board failed to observe principle of fundamental justice by not giving respondent opportunity to reply to new case law, whether Board ignoring relevant evidence respondent could not return to Colombo as IFA-Motions Judge certifying as serious question of general importance: whether CRDD having duty, after close of hearing, prior to rendering decision, to reopen hearing to give parties opportunity to make submissions when CRDD relying on superior court authority rendered after close of tribunal's hearing-To be certified pursuant to Immigration Act, s. 83(1), question must transcend interests of immediate parties to litigation, contemplate issues of broad significance or general application, but be determinative of appeal-Reference to analysis of concept of "importance" in Rankin v. McLeod, Young, Weir Ltd. et al. (1986), 57 O.R. (2d) 569 (H.C.)-S. 83 certification process neither equated with Federal Court Act, s. 18.3 reference process, nor used as tool to obtain from Court of Appeal declaratory judgments on fine questions which need not be decided to dispose of particular case-Contrary to Ramoutar v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] 3 F.C. 370 (T.D.), Court's jurisdiction where question certified pursuant to s. 83(1) limited to appeal on question certified-Court should not be unduly restrictive in interpretation of scope of question certified (Coca-Cola Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise, [1984] 1 F.C. 447 (C.A.)), but as it cannot decide appeal on ground unrelated to that certified, will not entertain appeal not disposed of entirely by answer to certified question-Regardless of answer to certified question, Court of Appeal's decision determinative of appeal-If Motions Judge wrong in concluding Board violating principle of natural justice, appeal would be allowed and Board's decision restored-If right, appeal would be dismissed and Board's decision set aside-Certified question already answered in negative by Canada (Attorney General) v. Levac, [1992] 3 F.C. 463 (C.A.), decision rendered prior to that of Motions Judge, but not brought to his attention-Levac holding purely discretionary matter, particularly in absence of request by either party, whether Tribunal or Court entertaining new submissions because decision of higher court handed down after hearing could influence deliberation-No general duty on Board to reopen hearing, especially as Villafranca not making fundamental change in law-Villafranca merely expressing existing law in more eloquent, global manner-Certified question answered in negative, appeal allowed, Board's decision restored-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 83(1) (as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 73)-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.3 (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5).