Vezzani v. Canada ( Secretary of State )
A-1302-92
McKeown J.
20/6/94
7 pp.
Application for judicial review of CRDD decision applicant not Convention refugee-Applicant's counsel withdrawing in middle of hearing after disagreement with Board as to propriety of cross-examination by Refugee Hearing Officer concerning information omitted from Personal Information Form (PIF)-Board neither asking whether applicant prepared to continue without counsel nor offering adjournment-Hearing continued without counsel-Application allowed-Improper for lawyer to interfere with questioning of claimant concerning PIF-Applicant ill-served by improper conduct of counsel and intransigence of Board-Counsel's conduct so reprehensible Board should have considered reporting her to Law Society-Counsel not free to leave client in middle of case because disagrees with ruling of administrative tribunal-Although Board's frustration understandable, still required to act in accordance with basic principles of administrative law-Board should have alerted counsel to responsibility to client, instead of encouraging her to step out-Should have asked applicant if wanted to continue after counsel left, or whether wished adjournment to seek other counsel-Not all decisions to proceed without providing applicant benefit of counsel result in reviewable error-Board compounding denial of natural justice by refusing to offer applicant right of re-examination after completion of cross-examination-Misleading applicant into thinking had no right of re-examination by stating next stage in hearing to receive documentary evidence-Criteria for determining whether Board properly exercising discretion to disallow counsel set out in Howard v. Presiding Officer of Inmate Disciplinary Court of Stony Mountain Institution, [1984] 2 F.C. 642 (C.A.) by reference to R. v. Secretary of State for Home Department, Ex p. Tarrant, [1984] 2 W.L.R. 613 (Q.B. Div. Ct.)-Serious potential penalty if found not refugee as could be returned to his home country where alleged life may be in danger-Applicant not capable of presenting own case-Right to fair hearing taking precedence over need for quick and speedy hearing-Applicant prejudiced as Board relying on one of applicant's answers given in cross-examination-By not providing for re-examination, Board not allowing applicant opportunity to explain or clarify answers-Required assistance of counsel-Stress experienced by applicant by having lawyer walk out on him in middle of hearing should be considered-Applicant acting reasonably when lawyer leaving hearing-Applicant denied fair hearing by Board.