Digests

Toth v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

IMM-347-02

2002 FCT 1133, Rouleau J.

1/11/02

21 pp.

Judicial review of decision by Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) applicants not Convention refugees--Applicants citizens of Romania--Applicant Eleonora Toth alleging well-founded fear of persecution in Romania at hands of ethnic Romanians, Romanian Security Service (SRI), Romanian police authorities by reason of Hungarian ethnicity, religion as member of Reformed Church, political opinion as member of Hungarian Democratic Alliance of Romania (UDMR)--Based on credibility findings respecting applicant's evidence, testimony, documentary evidence, CRDD panel concluded insufficient credible evidence before it to establish, on balance of probabilities, applicant's fear of persecution at hands of SRI, police authorities well-founded--Credibility question of fact entirely within jurisdiction of CRDD panel as trier of fact-- Reviewing court cannot interfere with panel's findings of fact unless panel reached decision in perverse, capricious manner, without regard for relevant evidence submitted to it--Panel erred in assessment of both applicant's credibility, evidence-- Panel's decision appeared to be based on misconstruction of evidence in connection with applicant's claim of persecution by reason of Hungarian ethnicity, religion, political opinion-- Unreasonable for panel to draw conclusion no evidence Reformed Church members harassed in Romania, to dismiss solely on that basis this aspect of applicant's refugee claim-- Panel erred in reaching conclusions by ignoring relevant evidence supporting applicant's narratives--In reaching conclusion applicant not credible, Board did not identify internal inconsistencies, contradictions in applicant's testimony, but inferred important parts of testimony implausible--CRDD's decisions must be based on totality of evidence contained in record--CRDD under clear duty to justify credibility findings with specific, clear reference to evidence, particularly to portions, relevant to applicants' allegations--Findings of implausibility inherently subjective assessments largely dependent on individual panel member's perceptions of what constitutes rational behaviour --Panel either overlooked important portions of applicant's evidence or chose simply to disbelieve evidence--Erred in law in giving no weight to expert's psychological evidence properly before it, by failing to give reasons for rejecting totality of expert's evidence--Psychological report had such cogency fatal error for panel not to have expressly addressed evidence in reasons--Implausibility findings on at least two major findings of panel's decision not reasonable, requiring Court's intervention--Application allowed.