Ayodele v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-4812-96
Gibson J.
30/12/97
8 pp.
Application for judicial review of CRDD determination applicant, citizen of Nigeria, not Convention refugee-CRDD did not believe applicant's account of events submitted as establishing well-founded fear of persecution without, however, giving applicant opportunity to explain perceived inconsistencies in testimony-Application dismissed-Counsel for applicant argued Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gould v. Yukon Order of Pioneers, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 571 exposing implausibility findings to greater scrutiny than contemplated in Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.)-Not so-In Gould, all of evidence before Tribunal was in written form, no issues on facts but rather only on inferences to be drawn from agreed facts-No inconsistencies between Gould and Aguebor, and Aguebor remaining central authority on review of implausibility findings-Fact applicant not given opportunity to explain inconsistencies not error in law-Applicant should have opportunity to explain alleged inconsistencies in cases where inconsistencies found after fact, from painstaking analysis of transcripts of evidence (Gracielome v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989), 9 Imm. L.R. (2d) 237 (F.C.A.))-Contradictions herein not uncovered by "painstaking analysis of transcripts of evidence" but at brief sitting where applicant represented by counsel-Contradictions would have been as apparent to counsel as to CRDD members-In circumstances, to have decision fail, by reason only of failure on part of CRDD members to put contradictions to represented applicant going well beyond position enunciated in Gracielome and placing unwarranted burden on CRDD members.