Martin v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-3222-95
Rothstein J.
5/7/96
5 pp.
Judicial review of IRB, Appeal Division's decision not to reopen decision to vacate stay of removal order-(1) Whether appropriate test on reopening before Appeal Division (i) reasonable possibility Appeal Division's original decision might be changed in light of evidence presented in motion to appeal or (ii) new evidence, when considered in context of evidence as whole must be such as would be likely to persuade Appeal Division to change decision to dismiss appeal-Applicant alleging Appeal Division improperly applied second, higher, test-Application dismissed-Appeal Division applied lower first test, although alternatively of opinion second test proper test on reopening-(2) Appeal Division of view expert opinions not of appreciable assistance to Appeal Division in respect of matters within own expertise, knowledge but treated all expert evidence as admissible, and considered, assessed, weighed it-In view of treatment of expert evidence, views as to whether expert evidence required in respect of certain issues obiter-Whether erred as to necessity of expert evidence on certain issues need not be decided on judicial review-(3) Reopening application to be dealt with summarily-Only cases passing through reopening filter intended to be referred for full reconsideration-While unusual, unnecessary for Appeal Division to delve extensively into evidence on reopening application, within its authority to do so: Harding v. Minister of Manpower & Immigration, [1972] F.C. 1153 (C.A.); Fogel v. Minister of Manpower & Immigration, [1975] F.C. 121 (C.A.)-Question certified: In deciding whether to reopen proceedings, may IRB, Appeal Division weigh, consider, evaluate evidence?