Alexandrov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-1708-96

Date: 19971120

Docket: IMM-1708-96

BETWEEN:

     SERGUEI ALEXANDROV,

     IRINA ALEXANDROVA (a.k.a. Irina Alexandrov)

     LUDMILA ALEXANDROVA (a.k.a. Ludmila Alexandrov)

     SVETLANA SYROEJKO (a.k.a. Svetlana Syrvetko)

     and SVETLANA VIOUCHKINA

     Applicants

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

JEROME, A.C.J.:

[1]      This is an application for an order setting aside the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board which held that the applicants were not Convention refugees.

[2]      After part of the hearing before the Board had taken place, the interpreter requested, and was permitted, to make a personal statement in the presence of only the Refugee Hearing Officer and applicants' counsel. Thereafter, the panel was advised that the interpreter had given information concerning evidence in the case and that there was a possibility she would be called as a witness. A midhearing conference was held, after which the panel decided the applicants' request for a hearing de novo and decided to continue with a new interpreter. The applicants were assured that no negative inference would be drawn from the incident with the interpreter.

[3]      The applicants now seek to have the Board's decision set aside on the grounds that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from this series of events, is that the actions of the interpreter reflected unfavourably on the genuineness of their testimony and accordingly caused the Refugee Board to be biased.

[4]      At the hearing of this matter, I dismissed the application for the following reasons.

[5]      In determining whether a decision is reviewable because of a reasonable apprehension of bias, the proper test to apply is whether a reasonably informed person would be likely to perceive bias on the part of the decision-maker. Here, the applicants' complaint is not with respect to the decision-maker, the Refugee Board, but rather with the conduct of the interpreter. However, the interpreter's comments were never disclosed to the panel and therefore could not have affected the Board's assessment of the evidence. There is nothing to indicate that the evidence upon which the panel relied in making its decision was tainted by bias. On the contrary, it is apparent that the panel found the interpreter's behaviour to be inappropriate and chose to proceed with another interpreter.

[6]      Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that the Board erred in fact or in law in making its decision. As there is no reviewable error which would warrant setting aside the Board's decision, the application is dismised.

                                                  A.C.J.

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

November 20, 1997