Date: 20101028
Docket: IMM-6618-09
Citation: 2010 FC 1059
Montréal, Quebec, October 28, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
JUAN ARTEMIO AVILES YANEZ
GENOVEVA YOLANDA RODRIGUEZ DE LA ROSA
PAOLA AVILES RODRIGUEZ
JORGE EDUARDO AVILES RODRIGUEZ
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an
application for judicial review, pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) of a decision of
the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the
Board) dated December 11, 2009. The Board found that the applicants were
neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection for the purposes
of sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.
Background
[2]
The applicants are
all citizens of Mexico.
[3]
In 1990,
Mr. Aviles Yanez (the principal applicant) and his wife purchased a lot in what
was to be a new neighbourhood called “Las Maravillas”, located in the
Iztapalapa borough of Mexico
City. They
moved there in 1995.
[4]
They
allege the following facts in support of their claim:
[5]
In 1996, a
dispute arose between the Las Maravillas residents and the Iztapalapa municipal
authorities (the Iztapalapa Delegation). The Iztapalapa Delegation claimed that
the residents had not received subdivision authorization and that they were, in
fact, in violation of a presidential decree which designated the Las Maravillas
land as part of an ecological reserve. In February of 1996, after providing 48
hours notice, the Iztapalapa Delegation began pulling down houses. The
residents applied to the courts for injunctive relief, which was ultimately
granted. However, on July 19, 1996, further demolition was carried out – some
45 houses, out of the 70 to 80 that had been built, were destroyed. The courts
intervened again.
[6]
The
residents’ turbulent relationship with the Iztapalapa Delegation continued. In
2004, under the guise of performing maintenance work, the Iztapalapa Delegation
disconnected water services to the neighbourhood, interrupted electricity, and
even dug a trench to prevent residents from entering or exiting the community
via automobile. It was at this time that the Iztapalapa Delegation began
demanding a fee of 50 pesos per house per week in exchange for not demolishing
additional homes.
[7]
At the end
of 2006, the situation deteriorated further. In November, representatives from
the Iztapalapa Delegation visited the offices of the Las Maravillas homeowners’
association (the Association). They had come to collect their usual pay-off.
This time, however, the president of the Association and the principal applicant
─ who was serving as secretary for the Association ─ refused to
pay. The representatives threatened the principal applicant by telling him that
their boss, the newly elected Senator Rene Arce Islas, was powerful and would
be angered by the refusal.
[8]
In
December of that year, three people from the Frente Popular Francisco Villa
(FPFV), a political organization supposedly affiliated with Senator Arce Islas,
also attended at the offices of the Association. The group made it known that
they had good relations with the Senator. They indicated that the FPFV would be
able to put an end to the residents’ troubles with the Iztapalapa Delegation
and with Senator Arce Islas, if the Association would agree to assign it 50 of
the 200 Las Maravillas lots. This “offer” was refused. At that point, the principal
applicant was taken aside by one of the individuals and was told that if the
land wasn’t signed over, he would suffer significant consequences. The applicants
submit that Senator Arce Islas was the driving force behind both of these
incidents.
[9]
The
Association went to the National Human Rights Commission of Mexico (NHRC) to
file a complaint against the FPFV and against Senator Arce Islas. The NHRC
indicated, however, that it didn’t have jurisdiction to address the complaint
and recommended, instead, that a complaint be filed with the Iztapalapa
Delegation. The Iztapalapa Delegation refused to accept the complaint without
evidence.
[10]
The
situation in Las Maravillas continued to get worse. Police officers had taken
to harassing members of the community. The principal applicant began receiving
death threats on his mobile phone. On December 11, 2006, the Association
decided to set up a video camera to record activities in the neighbourhood and
collect evidence. Over the course of the subsequent few nights, the video
camera captured agents of the Iztapalapa Delegation entering the neighbourhood,
stripping parts from stolen cars, painting walls with threats, and breaking
windows. The Association decided to take the tapes to the media.
[11]
On the
evening of December 15, 2006, the night before the principal applicant was
going to take the tapes to the media, the Association’s office and his home
were broken into. The video tapes were taken from the office and a note was
left behind telling the Association to stop its investigations and complaints,
or suffer the consequences. At the applicants’ home, the intruders left a
message on one of the walls indicating that the next message would be written
using the blood of the principal applicant’s two children: Jorge and Paola. On
December 20, 2006, the police broke into the principal applicant’s
sister-in-law’s house looking for him; they said they had a warrant. On
December 21, 2006, the applicants left Mexico City and moved to Queretaro.
[12]
In April
of 2007, the principal applicant started to receive threatening phone calls at
his new mobile phone number. On May 3, 2007, he went to the State Commission of
Human Rights in Queretaro to ask for assistance. They
said they had no jurisdiction to help, but gave him a document that he could
take to the Agency of the Public Prosecutor requesting that it receive his
complaint regarding the threats. The principal applicant did not take the
document to the authorities.
[13]
On May 19,
2007, while working at his restaurant job in Queretaro, a man confronted the
principal applicant and told him that Mexico
was a small place and that he couldn’t hide. It was at that point that the applicants
decided to leave. The principal applicant resigned from his job the next day.
On May 24, 2007, after picking up his final pay check from work, he was
attacked by a pair of men. They kicked him and told him that they hadn’t
forgotten about him. The men gave him 24 hours to convince the residents
of Las Maravillas to sign over the 50 lots to the FPFV; otherwise he and his
family would pay with their lives. He went to the Public Ministry in Queretaro, accompanied by a lawyer, to
file a complaint regarding the attacks and the threat. The authorities took
down the details of his statement and told him to return the next day. He went
back the next day, but the people at the Public Ministry refused to assist him
further. They told him that he would have to wait until the employees who took
his statement came back to work, which would be in 48 hours.
[14]
The
principal applicant decided he could not wait that long. On May 26, 2007, the applicants
left Queretaro for Mexico City. On May 29, 2007, they left Mexico City
and arrived in Canada. They sought refugee protection upon
arrival.
[15]
The Board
found the the principal applicant was not credible on matters central to his
claim, that he had not rebutted the presumption of state protection, and that,
in any event, Guadalajara was a viable Internal Flight Alternative (IFA). It
concluded by rejecting the applicants’ claim and finding that the applicants
were not Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection for the purposes
of sections 96 and 97 of the IRPA.
Issues
[16]
This
application raises the following issues:
a) What is the applicable
standard of review?
b) Was the Board’s credibility
determination unreasonable?
c) Was the Board’s assessment as
to the availability of state protection unreasonable?
d) Was the Board’s IFA analysis
unreasonable?
Analysis
a) What is the applicable
standard of review?
[17]
Decisions
concerning credibility lie within the “heartland of the discretion of triers of
fact” (Siad v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 F.C. 608, 36 Imm.
L.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.A.) at para. 24). As such, credibility findings are to be
reviewed using the reasonableness standard of review (Aguebor v. Canada
(Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315, 42 A.C.W.S.
(3d) 886 (F.C.A.) at para. 4; Yin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2010 FC 544 at para. 22).
[18]
Questions
as to the adequacy of state protection are questions of mixed fact and law and,
thus, are also reviewable against the reasonableness standard (Hinzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
2007 FCA 171, 63 Imm. L.R. (3d) 13 at para. 38 [Hinzman]; R.G. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
2010 FC 801 at para. 9).
[19]
IFA
assessments, similarly, warrant deference because they involve both evaluation
of the circumstances of the applicants, as related by them in their testimony,
and expert understanding of country conditions (Sivasamboo v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1995] 1 F.C. 741, 52
A.C.W.S. (3d) 136 (F.C.T.D.) at para. 26). The appropriate standard for
reviewing an IFA determination made by the RPD is the reasonableness standard (Rodriguez
Diaz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
2008 FC 1243, [2009] 3 F.C.R. 395 at para. 24).
[20]
In Dunsmuir
v. New
Brunswick,
2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at para. 47 [Dunsmuir], the Supreme Court
of Canada held that "reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence
of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making
process. But it is also concerned with whether the decision falls within a
range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the
facts and law.”
b) Was the Board’s credibility
determination unreasonable?
[21]
The Board
found that there were “numerous omissions and contradictions” in the applicants’
testimony. It highlighted the five “most important ones.”
[22]
First, the
Board took issue with the principal applicant’s testimony that the Iztapalapa
Delegation had asked him to pay 3,500 pesos ($350 USD according to the Board’s
calculations) per week, in exchange for not demolishing additional homes. It
specifically took issue with the amount of money involved. It found that the
principal applicant “simply could not afford to pay [this amount] on a weekly
basis,” and, thus, wondered why the amount had been omitted by the
principal applicant in his PIF narrative.
[23]
The Board
appears to have misconstrued the principal applicant’s testimony. The principal
applicant indicated that “normally… the people gave… a weekly quote of five
dollars per house.” When asked who the “people” were, he explained that it was
the 70 to 80 residents who were living in Las Maravillas. So, normally at
least, it was not a case of asking one person for $350 per week, it was a case
of asking everyone in the neighbourhood to each pay $5 per week. The Board
appears to have concluded, however, that in the case of the November 2006
incident, the Iztapalapa Delegation expected the principal applicant to pay all
of the money (i.e. the full 3500 pesos or $350) out of his own pocket. This is
evident from its determination that “3500 pesos… is an amount that he
simply could not afford to pay on a weekly basis” (emphasis added). This
interpretation is not supported by the testimony. It is true that at the
hearing the Board asked, “Wait a minute, they wanted you to pay for all the
houses, yes?” To which the principal applicant responded, “Since we were in the
office, [they wanted the Association president] and me to pay for all the
houses because we were on the Association’s office.” However, he went on in his
testimony to explain that this was no different from what the Iztapalapa
Delegation normally demanded, in that the money was normally collected from all
of the residents in the community by the president and then given over to the
Iztapalapa Delegation. He said, during the November 2006 incident, the
Iztapalapa Delegation was “asking [the president] and me for that money because
we were on the board of direct[ors] of the association. And [the president] usually
was the person in charge of put[ting] together the money and giv[ing] the
money to these people” (emphasis added). The record simply does not support
the Board’s interpretation that somehow, on this occasion, the principal applicant
was being asked to pay 3500 pesos per week out of his own pocket, an amount he
“simply could not afford to pay”. Thus its credibility determination on this
point is not “defensible in respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir,
above at para. 47) and is unreasonable.
[24]
Second,
the Board found the principal applicant’s credibility to be affected because he
expanded upon who he feared persecution from as between the time he entered Canada and the time of the hearing.
The Board pointed to the notes taken by the immigration officer at the point of
entry. In responding to the question “Are you afraid of a group of people or an
individual”, the principal applicant replied, “Rene Arce is his name, he is a
political leader in Mexico who has threatened me and my
family”. Similarly, in responding to the question, “Whom are you afraid of if
you returned to your country,” in Schedule I of the Background Information
form, he indicated “Rene Arce”. The Board found that these answers were
inconsistent with the one given “spontaneously, without hesitation” before the
Board at the hearing. There, the principal applicant indicated he feared not
only Senator Rene Arce Islas, but also: the FPFV, the Iztapalapa Delegation,
the Mexico City police, and members of the
Party of the Democratic Revolution (PDR).
[25]
The
Board’s rejection of the principal applicant’s explanation, in this case, was
unreasonable. The record does not reflect the Board’s finding that the
principal applicant’s answer at the hearing, when he eventually listed 5
potential persecutors, “was given spontaneously, without any hesitation.” In
fact, when first asked by the Board, “Who is it that you fear would persecute
you in Mexico today…?” he responded in the
same way he had to the immigration officer’s question: “The senator Rene Arce
Islas.” Moments later, he asked, “I don’t know as the question was who, I don’t
know if I have to include the organization that contacted us, that the
organization that he…” At which point, the Board interrupted and said, “Okay.
So he would be the primary persecutor as I understand it…” This was a
spontaneous exchange. However, it reinforces the principal applicant’s
explanation, given much later on in the hearing, that he understood the
question posed to him by the immigration officer to be referring to a single
person. In the context of the hearing, he exhibited the exact same confusion as
to the nature of the question. In fact, it was only on the second day of the
hearing, when the principal applicant’s counsel asked him to clarify his
answer, that he replied with the complete list of persecutors. The exchange
was:
Q: Sir, you say in the last hearing that
Rene Arce Islas was your primary persecution agent. Who do you fear exactly?
A: Well I fear also the Frente Popular
Francisco Villa that depends from him, well not from him but from the same
party and he controls part of the party the PRD. And also there are the people
from the Iztapalapa Delegation and the Mexico City government that is also controlled by
the PRD, And (inaudible) .
[26]
It is
clear that the list of persecutors was not given “spontaneously, without any
hesitation,” at the hearing. It was only after the principal applicant’s own
counsel asked for clarification that he understood what was being asked and
provided the complete list. The record does not support the conclusion that the
Board appears to have arrived at: that the additional persecutors were made up
to bolster the principal applicant’s claim. The various groups that the
principal applicant eventually listed explicitly as potential persecutors were
implicitly listed by the principal applicant much earlier on: he mentioned
them in the complaint filed with the Mexican police as far back as May 24, 2007
(prior to his entry into Canada), they were mentioned in his PIF narrative
filed on June 26, 2007, and they were discussed in detail before the Board
prior to being asked to specifically list the groups. The Board’s negative
credibility determination on this point was unreasonable.
[27]
The
Board’s third credibility finding was based on the principal applicant’s
failure to make any efforts to determine what had happened with his Las
Maravillas land since leaving Mexico. The Board rejected the
explanations provided by the principal applicant.
[28]
The
principal applicant had explained at the hearing that he believed someone on
the Las Maravillas board of directors was giving information to Senator Rene
Arce Islas. This, combined with the fact that he might ultimately be returned
to Mexico, meant that he did not want
to take the risk of following-up. The Board’s only reference to this
explanation in its reasons was that the principal applicant had “alleged that
he does not feel safe enough in Canada to try to find out what happened with
the lands” (emphasis added). This is, in fact, a misstatement of the principal
applicant’s explanation. It was not that the principal applicant did not feel
safe enough in Canada to follow up, it was that he worried that it might
make his situation worse in the event that he were returned to Mexico.
Again, I find this aspect of the Board’s credibility assessment was
unreasonable.
[29]
Regardless
of the fact that some of the Board’s credibility findings were defensible in
respect of the facts and law ─ and, thus, were reasonable ─ I find
that the Board’s overall determination that the principal applicant was “not
credible” was unreasonable. It involved simply too many unreasonable findings
on matters central to his claim to be considered justified.
c) Was the Board’s assessment as
to the availability of state protection unreasonable?
[30]
The Board
determined that even if the principal applicant was credible (i.e. even if it
had accepted the principal applicant’s account of events), he still had not
rebutted the presumption of state protection. It faulted the principal applicant
for not following up on the complaint he had filed with the Queretaro police and for leaving only 5
days after filing it, for not following up on the complaint he filed with the
Queretaro State Human Rights Commission, and for not providing the authorities
with his contact information. Although it referred to no documentary evidence
on country conditions in its analysis, the Board did indicate that it adopted
the reasoning in RPD decision TA6-07453, which it found to be persuasive with
respect to the availability of state protection in Mexico.
[31]
Assessing
the availability of state protection is central to determining whether a
refugee claimant's fear of persecution is objectively well-founded. Except in
cases of complete breakdown of the state apparatus, we must start with the
presumption that a state is able to protect its citizens. The refugee claimant,
thus, has the onus of establishing relevant, reliable and convincing evidence
that, on a balance of probabilities, rebuts this presumption (Canada
(Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, 103 D.L.R. (4th) 1 at 724 (Ward);
Flores Carrillo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2008 FCA 94, [2008] 4 F.C.R. 636 at para. 30). As part of this onus, a claimant
coming from a democratic country will generally be required to show that they
approached the state and sought protection, without success. The more
democratic a state is, the more the individual must have done to exhaust all
avenues of protection available (Kadenko v. Canada (Solicitor General)
(1996), 143 D.L.R. (4th) 532 at 534, 206 N.R. 272 (F.C.A.); Hinzman,
above at para. 57; Zepeda v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2008 FC 491, [2008] F.C.J. No. 625 at para. 13 (Zepeda)).
[32]
While Mexico is a functioning democracy,
it nonetheless faces well-documented governance and corruption problems. As
such, the presumption of state protection is somewhat diminished and, thus,
decision-makers must engage in a full assessment of the evidence placed before
them. This assessment should include the context of the country of origin in
general, all the steps that the applicants did in fact take, and their
interaction with the authorities (Zepeda, above at para. 20; Villicana
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
2009 FC 1205, 86 Imm. L.R. (3d) 191 at para. 67).
[33]
Critically
lacking in the Board’s reasons is any assessment of the country conditions in Mexico. In this regard, the Board
simply adopted RPD persuasive decision TA6-07453, from November 26, 2007. This
is insufficient. In TA6-07453, the principal agent of persecution was a gang
member, who allegedly had connections with members of the police. In this case,
the principal agent of persecution is an elected member of the Mexican
government. The principal applicant has testified that this elected official is
the leader of a major political party and has influence throughout the
government and the police. Certainly, this requires a different analysis as to
the question of state protection.
[34]
The June
27, 2008 National Documentation Package on Mexico was in evidence before the Board. The applicants
point to a number of documents within the June 27, 2008 package that go towards
rebutting the presumption of state protection in this case. For instance, one
of the reasons the principal applicant says he did not put much faith in the
state’s ability to protect him from Senator Arce Islas was because of the
immunity afforded to politicians in Mexico. In this regard, the applicants
point to a Response to Information Request prepared by the IRB in October of
2004 which cites the US-based Center for Public Integrity as saying:
In Mexico, politicians or public servants can
steal, bribe, or conspire to commit extensive frauds against the government and
not spend a minute in jail… . If indicted, government officials enjoy freedom
until they are sentenced, a process that can take years in the Mexican judicial
system.
[35]
The
principal applicant also says that he fears the Mexican police directly because
of Senator Arce Islas’ influence over them. In this regard, the applicants
point to a March 11, 2008 US Department of State Report which indicates that:
The government generally respected and
promoted human rights at the national level by investigating, prosecuting, and
sentencing public officials and members of the security forces. However, impunity
and corruption remained problems, particularly at the state and local level.
The following human rights problems were reported: unlawful killings by
security forces; kidnappings, including by police; physical abuse; poor and
overcrowded prison conditions; arbitrary arrests and detention; corruption,
inefficiency, and lack of transparency in the judicial system; confessions
coerced through physical abuse permitted as evidence in trials; criminal
intimidation of journalists leading to self-censorship; corruption at all
levels of government; domestic violence against women, often perpetrated
with impunity; violence, including killings, against women; trafficking in
persons, sometimes allegedly with official involvement; social and economic
discrimination against indigenous people; and child labor. [emphasis added]
[36]
Not only
did the Board neglect to refer to relevant country documentation, it also
failed to acknowledge the severity of the principal applicant’s situation. In
response to questions about why he had not attempted alternate methods of
recourse (i.e. after filing his complaint with the police on May 24, 2006) the
principal applicant testified that, “The steps were available but the problem
is the time, the time was running against me because I knew that these people
will go back for me.” The fact that the principal applicant was only given 24
hours by his attackers was not mentioned by the Board in its analysis of state
protection. Nor was the fact that they had threatened to kill him. It faulted
him for leaving Mexico too soon, for not following
up on his complaint, for not contacting supervisors at the Queretaro police, for not following up
with the Human Rights Commission and for not contacting the SACTEL helpline.
The 24-hour deadline and the severity of the threat are highly relevant pieces
of evidence in relation to all of these concerns. After all, a claimant is not
required to put themself in danger in order to exhaust all possible avenues of
protection (Ward, above at para. 48; Zepeda, above at para. 16).
[37]
While the
RPD is not required to refer to every piece of evidence before it in its
reasons, it should engage with the evidence that is central to a claimant’s
position and indicate why it can be discounted or why other evidence is to be
preferred (Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) (1998), 157 F.T.R. 35, 83 A.C.W.S. (3d) 264 (F.C.T.D.) at
para. 15, (Cepeda-Gutierrez); Sanchez v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1336, [2009] 3 F.C.R. 591 at para.
88; Villicana, above; S.A.M.G. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
2010 FC 812 at para. 63). The Board failed to do that in this case. As such,
its determination as to state protection was unreasonable.
d) Was the Board’s IFA analysis
unreasonable?
[38]
The Board
found that the applicants had not discharged their burden with respect to
demonstrating they lacked an IFA. First, the Board considered whether there
existed another part of Mexico where the claimants would not
face persecution. It considered Guadalajara.
The Board indicated that it did not believe, given the large size and
population of Mexico, that Senator Arce Islas
would have the “desire, the means, or the ways to be able to locate the
principal claimant.” As for the “means, or the ways”, it rejected the
suggestion that the Senator would be able to find the applicants using the
electoral list. It indicated that personal data was protected by privacy
legislation. If someone were to violate that legislation, it reasoned, that
person would be liable to punishment. In terms of the Senator’s “desire” to
locate the principal applicant in 2009, the Board listed the concerns of the applicants
─ i.e. that the Senator might believe the principal applicant still had
evidence of corruption, and that the Senator was a violent person with a
guerrilla past ─ but rejected them without explanation.
[39]
Next, the
Board considered whether it would be objectively unreasonable or unduly harsh
to expect the applicants to move to another part of the country. It found that
the principal applicant, given his 16 years of schooling and his 11 years of
managerial experience, could find work in Guadalajara. It also found that the principal applicant’s
wife would be able to find work in Guadalajara,
given her experience and schooling. The children, it noted, could continue
their studies there. Ultimately, the Board determined that Guadalajara was a realistic IFA.
[40]
The determination
of the existence of an IFA is integral to the determination of the entire
refugee claim (Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)
(1991), [1992] 1 F.C. 706, 140 N.R. 138 (F.C.A.) at para. 8 (Rasaratnam)).
The applicant bears the burden of proving that an IFA either does not exist or
is unreasonable in the circumstances (Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister
of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589, 109 D.L.R. (4th) 682
(F.C.A.) at para. 12). Assessing the IFA issue involves a two-pronged analysis.
First, the Board must be satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that there
is no serious possibility of the claimant being persecuted in the proposed IFA;
and, second, conditions in the proposed IFA must be such that it would not be
unreasonable, upon consideration of all the circumstances, for the claimant to
seek refuge there (Rasaratnam, above; Thirunavukkarasu, above at paras.
5-6).
[41]
I find
that the Board’s reasons with respect to the first branch of the test reveal a
reviewable error. In concluding that Senator Arce Islas would not have the
“means, or the ways” to locate the applicants if they moved to Guadalajara, the
Board failed to address the principal applicant’s evidence that in 2007 he had,
in fact, been located after moving from Mexico City to Queretaro. The fact that
the principal applicant’s attackers had the ability to determine his location
in 2007 would suggest that they would, in fact, have the “means, or the ways”
necessary to determine his location in Mexico still today. The Board’s failure to engage
with this aspect of the principal applicant’s testimony, which runs directly
counter to its conclusion, suggests that the Board made an erroneous finding of
fact without regard to the evidence before it (Cepeda-Gutierrez, above
at para. 17). I find that this undermines the Board’s overall analysis and
renders its determination with respect to the availability of an IFA
unreasonable.
[42]
Accordingly,
the application for judicial review is allowed. The matter is returned to a
newly constituted Board for rehearing and redetermination.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS that the application for judicial
review is allowed. The matter is returned to a newly constituted Board for
rehearing and redetermination.
“Danièle
Tremblay-Lamer”
Email this Content