The applicants sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision upholding the Refugee Protection Division's (RPD) rejection of their refugee claims.
The applicants argued the RPD breached natural justice by rendering an oral decision after a very short break, suggesting bias.
The Court found the RAD's determination that a 50-minute break would have been sufficient was unintelligible, as the break was actually much shorter.
Additionally, the Court found the absence of the principal applicant's Basis of Claim narrative from the RPD record transmitted to the RAD was a significant breach of procedural fairness.
The application for judicial review was granted.
