Villalobos v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-5460-97 / IMM-1751-98
MacKay J.
28/5/99
14 pp.
Judicial review of CRDD's denial of request for oral hearing, application for hearing de novo based on reasonable apprehension of bias-Panel members who had heard refugee claim application ruled on motion-Before scheduled date for refugee hearing applicant requesting female interpreter-On day of hearing when apparent male interpreter assigned, applicant raising earlier request for female interpreter-Panel members arranged for female interpreter-Applicant submitting members of panel questioned applicant extensively, aggressively during direct examination; interrupting applicant, counsel during examination; treated counsel overly aggressively, including incident following end of hearing when panel members aggressively questioned counsel in applicant's presence about their perception of her practice of requesting female interpreters for hearings of refugee claims-Application allowed-Panel came close to unduly interfering with applicant's opportunity for full, fair hearing-Request that motion for recusal of decision-maker be heard orally may not be treated lightly-Very difficult for person considering motion to fully perceive concerns of counsel, whatever basis of written submissions, until motion heard with reference to legal authorities, and orally if counsel so requesting-That request may delay other claimants waiting to be heard fact of life, but delay not undue when concerning, as in this case, essential fairness of proceedings for which decision-maker concerned responsible-Reasonable person, observing entire sequence of events, would have reasonable apprehension of bias, whatever intent of panel members.