Isiaku v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-2264-97
Wetston J.
18/6/98
9 pp.
Application for judicial review of CADD's determination applicant not Convention refugee-Recording equipment normally used to provide transcript of hearing not functioning when Board delivered oral reasons, therefore did not have benefit of transcript to use in preparing written reasons for decision-Applicant submitting oral and written reasons differing substantially-Issue whether Board erred in giving oral reasons for decision, prior to providing written reasons for decision to applicant, contrary to Immigration Act, s. 69.1(11)(a)-Respondent submitting amendment made to Act, s. 69.1(11)(a) in 1992 curing procedural anomaly considered by Court of Appeal in Hussain v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 174 N.R. 76 (F.C.A.), by no longer requiring Board to give reasons at time of giving oral decision-Application dismissed-Purpose of Act, s. 69.1 to allow claimant to know in good time precise reason why claim rejected and thereby enable him to assess before incurring trouble and expense of further proceedings-Act, s. 69.1(11)(a) ensuring adjudication of Convention refugee claims occur in such manner as to allow claimants to plan their affairs in efficient and timely manner, first by ensuring that applicant can know why claim failed so that claimant can properly assess merits of seeking judicial review (by requiring written reasons); second, by providing applicant with formal notice of decision-In amending Act, s. 69.1(11)(a), Parliament did not intend that written reasons be provided both "with written notice of decision" and "with decision", because, as indicated in Act, s. 69.1(9), written notice of decision to follow rendering of Board's decision-Intent that Board shall, with written notice of decision referred to in Act, s. 69.1(9), give written reasons for its decision-Also, written notice of decision and reasons thus serving to establish when time for filing application for leave to appeal begins-Act, s. 69.1(11) significant as providing that, in cases where written reasons not given at time of decision and provided later, time for filing application for leave to commence application for judicial review will not commence until applicant notified in accordance with Act and Regulations-1992 amendment had effect of curing previous anomaly such that Board no longer required to deliver written reasons simultaneously with oral decisions-Board can provide written reasons after decision made, by providing them in conjunction with written notice of decision-Board herein not in breach of Act, s. 69.1(11)(a)-Applicant herein immediately advised of decision and later had opportunity to consider whether to seek judicial review, which commenced when he received written notice and written reasons for Board's decision-As no material difference between oral and written reasons herein, no breach of procedural fairness-Rules of procedural fairness not requiring Board to reserve all of its decisions, in order to ensure that adequate written reasons provided for each claimant-While adequate reasons certainly required, by providing reasons orally, with written reasons to follow along with Board's written notice of decision, Board also complying with requirement of Act, s. 69.1(9) that it render its decision as soon as possible-Question certified: where, after completion of hearing, Board has determined that claimant not Convention refugee, and provides reasons for decision orally, later reduced to writing and sent, along with written notice of decision to claimant, has Board complied with Immigration Act, ss. 69.1(9) and 69.1(11)(a)?-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, ss. 69.1(9) (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 18; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 60), (11)(a) (as enacted idem).