text:
Cookbook:Stuffed Grape Leaves

Grape leaves (stuffed), (Arabic: ورق دوالي); (Hebrew: עלי גפן ממולאים), are an appetizer popular in Middle Eastern countries, including Turkey and Persia, where it is usually eaten with stuffed rice that has been seasoned with a multitude of spices.

Ingredients

 * Batch of thin, freshly-picked grape leaves (choose only the thinnest leaves)
 * 1 kg uncooked rice, rinsed
 * Turmeric
 * Black pepper
 * 2 tsp salt
 * Dried mint leaves
 * 1 cup raisins
 * Fresh dill, finely chopped
 * Parsley
 * Green onions (scallions)
 * Cooking oil
 * 2 lemon

Procedure

 * 1) Soak leaves in boiling hot water to soften, about 15 minutes.
 * 2) Combine the rice, turmeric, pepper, salt, mint, raisins, dill, parsley and green onions.
 * 3) Place some of the rice mixture on a leaf, close to one end. Fold the three smaller ends of the leaf over the filling, then roll up the remainder like a sleeping bag or mat. Repeat with remaining rice and leaves.
 * 4) Place stuffed leaves in pot with a little water, oil, and lemon juice—the liquid should just barely cover the stuffed leaves.
 * 5) Cover pot with lid. First bring to a boil, then lower heat.
 * 6) Cook over low heat until the rice is cooked.
 * 7) Place sliced lemon on top of stuffed grape leaves for added flavour, and serve.

Notes, tips, and variations

 * Arabs have a practice to place the fatty tail of a sheep on top of the grape leaves while cooking, so that the melted fat is absorbed in the rice and leaves; in this manner it imparts its good flavour.

title: Cookbook:Stuffed Grape Leaves


text:
User:Awesome Aasim/huggle.yaml.js

--- enable: true version: "3.4.10 build: 3880 3.4.10" report-summary: "Reporting $1" confirm-multiple: false confirm-talk: true confirm-self-revert: true confirm-whitelist: true revert-on-multiple-edits: true automatically-resolve-conflicts: true software-rollback: false enforce-months-as-headers: true history-load: true on-next: 1 delete-edits-after-revert: true skip-to-last-edit: false preferred-provider: 2 remove-oldest-queue-edits: false truncate-edits: false talkpage-freshness: 20 remove-after-trusted-edit: true retrieve-founder: false display-title: false check-tp: true manual-warning: false summary-mode: false automatic-reports: false han-html: true han-display-user-talk: true han-display-bots: false han-display-user: true watchlist: "preferences" automatically-group: false queue-id: "default" page-empty-queue: "" enable-max-score: false max-score: 0 enable-min-score: false min-score: 0 automatic-refresh: true automatically-watchlist-warned-users: false shortcut-hash: "" show-warning-if-not-on-last-revision: true number-dropdown-menu-items: true insert-edits-of-rolled-user-to-queue: true confirm-on-recent-warning: true recent-warning-time-span: 120 confirm-warning-on-very-old-edits: true skip-warning-on-confirm: true queues:
 * 1) // This is a configuration of huggle, do not change it unless you know what you are doing.
 * 1) // Last version of huggle that wrote into this configuration file (sanity check)
 * 1) // This option will change the behaviour of automatic resolution, be carefull
 * 1) // Get original creator of every page so that you can G7 instead of reverting the page
 * 1) // Periodically check if you received new messages and display a notification box if you get them
 * 1) // HAN
 * 1) // Whether edits made by same user should be grouped up together in page
 * 1) // Location of page (wiki page name, for example WP:Huggle) that should be displayed when you hit next and queue is empty. Leave empty for default page.
 * 1) // If true you will not warn users who received a warning recently
 * 1) // If warning was sent less than N seconds ago it's considered too recent
 * 1) // If true, the options above will not generate confirmation, but instead will be silently accepted (warning will not be sent)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Awesome Aasim/huggle.yaml.js


text:
Transportation Planning Casebook/Sydney Metro-Greater West

Sydney metro western Sydney airport as known as Sydney Metro Greater West is a new metro line proposed and planned to connect Greater Western Sydney and the new Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport by 2026 (i.e. when the airport is planned to open). The completion of this line is also a step in the direction of key commitment towards realising 30-minute city of the Western Sydney City Deal, a 20 year agreement between the Federal, State government and 8 local councils.

This line will provide fast, safe and easy metro service to the communities of Western Parkland and is anticipated to be the transport spine for the Western Parkland City’s growth for coming generations. The Sydney Metro Greater West project will have:
 * Stations at Western Sydney Airport and the Western Sydney Aerotropolis;
 * A station at St Mary's, with interchange facility to existing station and provide a connection with the rest of Sydney’s rail system;
 * Fully-automated driverless trains with fast, frequent services.

This line is the stage 1 of the North-South Rail Link (connecting Macarthur in south-west to Schofields in north-west via  Western Sydney Airport) to connect with T1 North Shore, Northern & Western Line City Line at St. Marys.

Timeline of Events
(*)Planned

Maps of Rail Route
A full North-South metro link between Schofields and Macarthur via Western Sydney Airport has been proposed. In the first stage, the portion in between proposed Badgerys Creek Aerotropolis to St. Marys (connecting T1 Rail Line ) having interchange at both the ends is being taken up for implementation, the line will pass through Werrington, Kingswood, Caddens, Orchard Hills, Luddenham suburbs, however, stations other than St Mary’s, Western Sydney airport and Aerotropolis are yet not known.

Future Transport Strategy 2056 (NSW Government, 2017)
The Future Transport Strategy 2056 is a long term master plan for directing the plans for transport improvement and investment in Regional areas NSW and  Greater Sydney considering a 40 years horizon from 2016. This plan envisioned to grow the transport network to cater to the needs of 12 million people (expected population in 2056) making 28 million trips a day. Based on this plan the scoping studies for identifying the preferred network for catering to the needs of the Western Sydney and upcoming Western Sydney Airport were undertaken for addressing various policy issues through a joint initiative of Australian and NSW Government in 2016. The scoping studies report was published in March 2018. The factors requiring the rail network in Western Sydney were analysed.

Population growth - Western Sydney
The population of Western Sydney is around 2 million (2016) and it is expected to grow to 3 million by 2030. The population growth is expected in western suburbs like Blacktown, Greater Parramatta, Campbelltown, Liverpool and others. Coupled with urban renewal. This will lead to an increase in transit demand and will put pressure on existing public transport infrastructure. This growth will pose the 2 challenges:- These challenges induce the requirement for providing the fast, efficient and highly reliable transport corridor to be developed.
 * Ensuring the transport network has the capacity to support population growth in established areas
 * Ensuring transport services are integrated with the planning of new land releases and areas of urban renewal.

Jobs growth - Western Sydney
About 300,000 residents (2016) of Western Sydney travel long distances mainly towards CBD for jobs or study, these numbers are further going to increase, with higher population growth rate the job deficit will grow to 340,000 in 2056 in case there is no intervention by the government. The areas of economic activity in western Sydney have the capacity to grow, the businesses often cite poor connectivity and lower-quality transport connections as a barrier to relocate to Western Sydney. While the initial construction phase at its peak would be expected to generate over 3,000 jobs, the airport itself would be expected to deliver nearly 9,000 direct jobs in the early 2030s, with that number expected to increase to over 60,000 by 2063. This means an airport will create jobs closer to where people live and help reduce the number of Western Sydney workers who currently experience long commutes by travelling out of the area.

Though the connections to the Sydney CBD will continue to be important, improved transport connections across Western Sydney will unlock Western Sydney’s full economic potential and offer people a greater range of choices as to where they live and work.

Road network
The Greater Sydney’s suburban railway network is covering a large geographical area, however, many parts of Western Sydney are not well served by rail due to Western Sydney’s large geographical area and its relatively low population densities.

Currently, the rail transport demand for Western Sydney is being fulfilled by T1 North Shore, Northern & Western Line, T2 Inner West & Leppington, T3 Bankstown Line, T5 Cumberland Line and T8 Airport & South Line. Ridership during peak hours is expected to double from 2016 to 2056. Without investment in the new rail network, higher demand on existing network shall downgrade performance.

A private car is currently the predominant means of transport within Western Sydney, with about 80 per cent of the 900,000 road trips. On average, people living further away from the Harbour CBD own more vehicles and drive more than those living closer to the Harbour CBD.

This, in turn, will shift the additional demand to the Road networks, leading to road congestion. Below is the indicative road congestion in 2056 AM peak, without rail.

Bus services
Bus services play an important role in providing transport options for Western Sydney residents. Bus services in Western Sydney consist of local services connecting to local centres and railway stations, suburban services providing end-to-end access between centres and rapid services using bus priority infrastructure, such as T-ways. Currently, there is over 170 km of bus priority infrastructure in Western Sydney.

Many of the heaviest demand corridors in the 2030s will be related to Western Sydney, the figure below shows the forecast bus demand in Western Sydney in 2056 without rail links, with red indicating demand to be higher than seated capacity.

Western Sydney Airport (second airport in Sydney)
The Australian Government in 2014 announced that Badgerys Creek will be the site for Western Sydney Airport. This will be a catalyst for economic growth in the region for decades to come, creating new businesses and jobs across a range of industries, including transport and logistics, hospitality, education, research and professional services. It will also ensure the growing population and local businesses have access to the domestic and international aviation network.

The operation of the airport is expected to start in 2026. The airport is expected to serve approximately 10 million passengers a year within five years after opening. The airport will initially have a single 3.7-kilometre runway and will be a full-service airport capable of handling the full range of international, domestic and freight aircraft. As it grows over time, a second runway will be needed when demand approaches around 37 million passengers a year, which is expected around 2050. Around 2063, Western Sydney Airport could cater to approximately 80 million people per year.

As the Kingsford Smith Airport (first Airport) shall continue to operate, in initial years the demand for the Western Sydney airport will be mainly from the Western Sydney area. By 2040 it is forecasted that Kingsford Smith Airport shall achieve full capacity, then the Western Sydney airport shall cater to the increased traffic which will induce higher growth rates for the new airport thereby increasing demand for transit from the new airport.

When Kingsford Smith Airport will reach full capacity the Western Sydney airport shall start serving passengers from Eastern Harbour City and inner suburbs at then the Western Sydney rail links shall be more important.

Given the primary catchment for Western Sydney Airport will be within Western Sydney until around the 2040s, the short term transport priority for the airport is to support connections to the airport within the region which can be done by connecting the airport to the rail network in greater west. However, as Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport reaches its long-term aircraft movement capacity around the 2040s, Western Sydney Airport will need to cater for more passengers who live in the broader Greater Sydney basin and not just Western Sydney. By the 2060s, passengers from the Harbour CBD and Greater Sydney’s inner suburbs could account for almost half of Western Sydney Airport’s forecast 80 million passengers. To support this growing catchment in the long-term, transport links between the Harbour CBD and Western Sydney Airport will become more important at then.

Globally about 20% of the ground transportation is shared by the rails connected to airports. In case of Sydney’s Kingsford Smith airport which is served by T8 Airport & South Line between the Harbour CBD and Macarthur, has a 20% ground transport share for the rail which is higher in context of Australian airport, this is partly because of increasing congestion around Sydney airport. This is 9% in the case of Brisbane airport due to lower level of road congestion and low car parking charges. Considering 20% patronage to Rail transport, it is estimated that initially, 1 million airport passengers will be travelling by rail, this will be 2 million in 2030 and 16 million in 2060.

Along with the railway, the NSW government is also building two motorways towards the new airports. These include the M10 Outer Sydney Orbital and the M12 Western Sydney Airport Motorway. It is expected that these may put a balance on both public and private transport.

Metropolis of three cities and Western Sydney City Deal
The construction of the metro linking the Aerotropolis, Western Sydney Airport and St Mary's with the T1 Rail network is also a step towards the realization of the vision of The Greater Sydney Region Plan, A Metropolis of Three Cities. This is a vision of the future where most of the residents living in the three cities are able to reach within 30 minutes to their jobs, education and health facilities, services and great places. The three cities envisioned are

The Eastern Harbour City:- It is the established eastern harbour city, this area has well-established transport links and is the economic hub of NSW, it is envisioned to build this city around its strong sectors of finance, professional, health, education and innovation.

The Central River City:- With Greater Parramatta at the core, Central River City covers the areas of  Camellia, Rydalmere, Silverwater and Auburn and the Sydney Olympic Park with an economy  centred on health, education and research institutions as well as finance, business services and administration.

The Western Parkland City:- This is areas of Greater Western Sydney around new international Western Sydney Airport and Badgerys Creek Aerotropolis along with areas of established centres of Liverpool, Greater Penrith and Campbelltown-Macathur. The vision of this city is focused on developing strong trade, freight, logistics, advanced manufacturing, health, education and science economy leading to knowledge-intensive jobs close to areas of high population growth.

The Western Sydney Planning Partnership (Planning Partnership) is preparing the draft Land Use and Infrastructure Implementation Plan, for which the Draft Western Sydney Aerotropolis Plan, Western Sydney Aerotropolis Discussion Paper on the proposed State Environmental Planning Policy and Draft Western Sydney Aerotropolis Development Control Plan were put for public exhibition and comments February–March 2020. The rezoning of the land will present a development opportunity for the residential and business area. Quality connectivity will be essentially required for the success of these new areas being developed.

Western Sydney city Deal:  - Signed between the Australian government, NSW government and the local governments of the Blue Mountains, Camden, Campbelltown, Fairfield, Hawkesbury, Liverpool, Penrith and Wollondilly for making third metropolis city i.e. Western Parkland city a fully realised 21st-century city over the next 20 years. The City Deal is built on the Australian Government’s $5.3 billion investment in the Western Sydney Airport, which will be a catalyst for economic activity and job growth, providing long-term employment opportunities for local residents and meeting Sydney’s growing aviation needs. The core objectives of the deal are

 * Realising the 30-minute city by delivering public transport for the Western Parkland City
 * Creating 200,00 jobs by supercharging the Western Parkland City
 * Skilling our residents in the region and initiating new education opportunities
 * Respecting and building on local character, enhancing liveability and improving the quality of the local environment
 * Innovative approaches to planning and delivery of housing
 * Getting on with delivering the Western Parkland City through enduring tri-level governance

The implementation of the Greater west metro link is a step taken by the governments towards the realization of the goals of the Western Sydney city deal and the metropolis of three cities.

Case Narrative
The scoping studies identified that the North-South link in Western Sydney via Sydney Western airport and Feast west link from link connecting Western Sydney airport and Central city will significantly improve the rail network in the Western Sydney region.

The first stage of North-South Link from the Western Sydney Aerotropolis via Western Sydney Airport to St Mary's is proposed to be taken up for construction in 2021 such that it will be ready to connect the Western Sydney airport and the Aerotropolis to Sydney’s Rail network at st Mary’s. This link is supposed to enhance cross-regional rail capacity in Western Sydney connecting growth areas in the north-west. Importantly, this link would provide onward rail connections to strategic centres such as Penrith, Liverpool, Greater Parramatta and Campbelltown. Over the longer term, it will be a key element for structuring and shaping the significant growth of Western Sydney along the rail line and would mark as a step forward in improving Western Sydney’s transport network. It will also broaden Greater Sydney’s focus from the Harbour CBD and opens new possibilities for homes, jobs and investment in Western Sydney. The Scoping Study also shows that if delivered around the opening of Western Sydney Airport in 2026, the North-South Link could provide a range of city shaping and economic benefits and can be economically viable if demand at the airport grows from 2026 onwards.

At the present stage, the survey investigations for finalizing the alignment along with geotechnical investigations are underway. The tentative cost for a full north-south link is estimated to around $15-$20 billion, in the first stage it is estimated around $3.45 billion to shared by both federal and State government in 50:50 ratio. billion. However, the actual estimated cost can be ascertained after the finalization of design and alignment.

Discussion Question

 * Will the Airport and local resident/ workers around the area be able to generate enough for rail transit demands for the line to be Economical viable?
 * Should the Line be an Express line or have stations in between the end stations?
 * Why not a dedicated freeway connecting M-4 and M-7 from the airport be preferred to Metro?
 * Will the metro link to Aerotropolis increase the competitiveness to relocate from the existing residences and business around Sydney?
 * Is the Metro connectivity critical to the success of Western Sydney airport or vice versa?


text:
English-Hanzi/White rice without added vitamins

White rice without added vitamins can cause beriberi due to lack of vitamin B1.

没有添加维生素的白米由于缺乏维生素B1会引起脚气病.


text:
English-Hanzi/White rice usually adds some nutrients

White rice usually adds some nutrients that have been removed during processing.

白米通常会添加一些在加工过程中已去除的营养物质.


text:
Canadian Refugee Procedure/The Board's inquisitorial mandate

Refugee Status Determination is said to be among the most difficult forms of adjudication, involving as it does fact-finding in regard to foreign conditions, cross-cultural and interpreted examination of witnesses, ever-present evidentiary voids, and a duty to prognosticate potential risks rather than simply to declare the more plausible account of past events. Within this context, RPD Members have to make high-stakes decisions on the basis of scarce and uncertain information, they need to strike a balance between the goals of protection and control, and Canadian refugee law is ambiguous and provides limited guidance, with credibility often being a key point in any given case. The process for Refugee Status Determination adopted in Canada that seeks to address these challenges is one where the Board has an inquisitorial mandate. The following are some of the contours of that mandate.

The Refugee Protection Division has an inquisitorial mandate
The Board generally uses an inquisitorial, as opposed to adversarial, approach to decision-making. Rebecca Hamlin describes the contrast between these two decision-making approaches this way:"The adversarial style takes the shape of a triad: two disputants arguing their respective cases before a passive judge, who must resolve the dispute by deciding which case is more persuasive. In an adversarial process, justice is based on the premise that an impartial judge decides between competing versions of this story after hearing both sides argued forcefully. Unlike this courtroom-like setting, inquisitorial hearings are designed to be non-adversarial and non-legalistic, taking the form of a dyad between the person whose fate is to be decided and the person deciding it. The inquisitorial decision-maker is engaged in a conversation with the parties, and the facts must be discovered through a collaborative process of research and questioning. Justice is demonstrated through the decision-maker's commitment to an active investigatory process."The Refugee Protection Division has an inquisitorial mandate. The Board's Chairperson Guideline 7 describes a Member's inquisitorial mandate this way:"A member's role is different from the role of a judge. A judge's primary role is to consider the evidence and arguments that the opposing parties choose to present; it is not to tell parties how to present their cases. Case law has clearly established that the RPD has control of its own procedures. The RPD decides and gives directions as to how a hearing is to proceed. The members have to be actively involved to make the RPD's inquiry process work properly."The Board states that the decision-maker is mandated to play an engaged role in the process. This inquisitorial mandate has implications for how a Member is to assess the claim; it implies that the Board “has a duty to consider all potential grounds for a refugee claim that arise on the evidence, even when they are not raised by the applicant”. Such inquisitorial processes are commonly utilized in human rights adjudicatory contexts in order to compensate for inequalities between parties.

Refugee Status Determination is declaratory, not constitutive
Recognizing someone as a refugee does not make the person a refugee. This is because refugee status determination is a declaratory, not constitutive act. As refugee lawyer David Matas writes, “a declaratory act recognizes someone to be what he is or always was. A constitutive act makes a person something he was not before. An asylum government cannot constitute someone to be a refugee, because he already is one.” As the refugee law academic James Hathaway puts it, refugee status arises out of the refugee's predicament, rather than from a formal determination of status. In the words of the UK Supreme Court, "the obligation not to refoule an individual arises by virtue of the fact that their circumstances meet the definition of ‘refugee’, not by reason of the recognition by a contracting state that the definition is met."

In this way, a decision-maker errs when they fail to recognize a genuine refugee as such, and a decision-maker also errs when they do the converse by wrongly recognizing someone who is not a refugee as such. While, in principle, a state may grant asylum to anyone that it may so choose, regardless of whether or not they meet the criteria enshrined in the Refugee Convention, or any other international treaty, such a wide-ranging power has not been delegated to Immigration and Refugee Board Members, who are restricted to recognizing cases where the applicable criteria in either s. 96 or s. 97 of the IRPA have been met. This principle is reflected in section 107 of the Act: Canadian Refugee Procedure/107 - Decision on Claim for Refugee Protection. Once the Board has concluded that a claimant does not satisfy the definition of a refugee, the Board had no general discretion to allow the claimant to remain in Canada on “equitable” grounds.

This modern conception of the refugee regime stands in contrast to pre-20th century views of asylum, where diplomatic and territorial asylum were considered to be constitutive acts such that it was the decision that made the person asking for asylum an asylee. This move away from a constitutive view of asylum to a declaratory one reflects the emergence of a rights-based view of the institution of asylum and refugee status. In Canada, this takes the form of the concrete legal obligation on the Canadian state to recognize as refugees those who meet the criteria in ss. 96 and 97 of the IRPA. Recognition of such is not a discretionary charitable act by Canada, but instead a personal right that individuals have pursuant to the IRPA, and, as recognized by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Refugee Convention. In their words in their decision in Pacheco Tineo v. Bolivia:

Even if the 1951 Convention does not explicitly establish the right to asylum as a right, it is considered to be implicitly incorporated into its text, which mentions the definition of a refugee, the protection against the principle of non-refoulement, and a list of rights to which refugees have access.... With the protection provided by the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol, the institution of asylum assumed a specific form and mechanism at the global level: that of refugee status.

Shauna Labman writes about the significance of this conception of asylum:"The benefit of a rights-based stance in law is that it adds a concrete assertion of legal obligation and accountability to refugee protection. It is equality between the parties. Stuart Scheingold defines this as 'the call of the law.' He suggests that the assertion of a right implies a legitimate and dignified reciprocal relationship that is societal and not personal. The current alternative calls in refugee protection are for compassion, humanitarianism, and morality. Such claims lack reciprocity and are founded on personal need. As Catherine Dauvergne explains, 'a claim for compassion does not effectively function as a right because rights are grounded in equality but compassion is grounded in generosity and inequality.'"All this said, the assertion that refugee status determination procedures are declaratory and not constitutive, and its implicit representation of ‘refugeehood’ as an objective identity given by law, appears to be tendentious. It is belied by the large variations in the way different individuals and systems answer the question of "who is a refugee?", even where they are all interpreting the same Convention provisions, evidence, and laws. That said, in the words of Tone Liodden, "the idea of the refugee as a non-negotiable identity across time and space may largely be fictional, but [it] is a ‘crucial fiction’ that has very real consequences for those who are granted – or denied – refugee status." For more on this point, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing.

A hearing becomes adversarial where the Minister is involved
While the Division's mandate is primarily conceived of as inquisitorial and non-adversarial, in some cases the Minister intervenes in a claim and the process becomes an adversarial one. As the Board states, "adversarial simply means that there are two opposing parties." This properly constrains the Member's role. Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer observed in Rivas v. Canada that in some situations, such as where exclusion is at issue, “it may be problematic for the tribunal to proceed without the Minister since the Minister usually has the burden of proof. As the applicant argues, it is a situation that can force the member to [translation] ‘descend into the arena’.” As Lorne Waldman states in his looseleaf: “… Since the burden of proof falls squarely on the Minister, it is certainly arguable that it is not appropriate for tribunal members themselves to engage in an investigation with respect to the exclusion matters. For the tribunal members to do so would result in their becoming prosecutors seeking to establish if the claimant falls within the exclusion clauses.”

Despite all of this, the jurisprudence recognizes that the Board may make a decision on the issue of exclusion without the Minister’s participation, and indeed that it may have an obligation to do so even where the Minister does not participate in a case. But once the Minister becomes involved, the hearing is seen to become an adversarial process, with both the Minister’s Hearings Officer and the refugee claimant presenting evidence to establish or rebut, say, the allegation of exclusion. This may entail some limits on the Member's proper role, and this relates to the requirement in the RPD Rules that the hearing be suspended immediately upon notification to the Minister of possible exclusion (which see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 26-28 - Exclusion, Integrity Issues, Inadmissibility and Ineligibility).

A situation can arise where the Minister concedes a point or makes a recommendation in the claimant's favour; this does not bind the Division and does not relieve a claimant from their obligation to make their case: Fong v Canada. That said, while a joint submission is not binding on the Division, the caselaw establishes that it should be given serious consideration: Nguyen v Canada. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to an independent decision-maker.

While the Minister has no obligation to become a party to a proceeding, once it does so and provides disclosure, its disclosure must be "complete" and cannot be selective: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 31-43 - Documents.

A Member should be adequately trained
A decision-maker should be adequately trained on issues of law and fact. The Board states that Members should have a thorough knowledge of the legal framework and a good command of the relevant provisions of the legislation, rules, principles of natural justice, and the case law, etc., in order to make the proper decision and to maintain the credibility and the authoritativeness of the panel.

While the training of Members of the Refugee Protection Division has generally been well regarded, in contrast, this has not always been seen to be the case with overseas visa officers deciding applications for resettlement from abroad. For example, in Ghirmatsion v. Canada, the Federal Court concluded that the visa officer's "lack of adequate training and support" were evident on cross-examination.

There are also limits to the training and competency properly expected of a Member. In Ramirez v. Canada, the claimant argued on judicial review that the Board Member should have considered whether counselling in the proposed IFA location would be likely to adequately address the applicant’s mental health issues; the court rejected this argument, concluding that "such an analysis would have been speculative and well beyond the RAD’s expertise." This principle is also reflected in the additional services available to Members, for example the statement in the Instructions for Gathering and Disclosing Information for Refugee Protection Division Proceedings that where, after consulting with the responsible member manager, the assigned member forms the opinion that forensic verification is necessary, they may direct the RPD adjudicative support team to send the document to the RCMP Forensic Laboratory Services for verification.

A claimant has an onus to show that they meet the criteria to be recognized as a refugee
The Federal Court affirms that the burden of proof rests on a claimant to show that they meet the definition of a Convention Refugee or a 'person in need of protection' in the Act. The Irwin Law text Refugee Law notes that this burden flows from the general proposition in international law that an individual seeking admission to a state must justify their admission. The UNHCR is of the view that this principle properly applies in the refugee context, stating that "the burden of proof in principle rests on the applicant". The burden of proof was previously allocated differently in Canadian refugee law, but in 1988 Canada's legislature modified the immigration legislation to shift the burden of proof for making a claim onto the asylum seeker.

The Federal Court holds that the onus is on the applicant to submit a clear, detailed, and complete application. The UNHCR Handbook provides that those examining a refugee claim should "ensure that the applicant presents his case as fully as possible and with all available evidence." This does not mean that the Board member is obliged to undertake a freestanding inquiry into a claim; the Refugee Appeal Division has held that the following principles apply in the refugee determination context: "a decision-maker [is] entitled to proper notice as to what exactly [is] being advanced. It is not up to the decision-maker to ferret out points which might possibly assist an applicant." Similarly, Member Railton of the Refugee Protection Division has noted that "The role of the Division hearing an application to re-open does not include a fact-finding mission on behalf of the applicants". One of the reasons for this is about judicial economy; indeed, it is said that "states have a right to a fair and efficient asylum procedure".

In the Canadian system there also exist legal issues where the burden of proof does not fall on the claimant: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The Board's inquisitorial mandate.

Furthermore, even where the burden of proof rests on the claimant, the Board cannot base some findings, for example that there is an internal flight alternative, in the absence of sufficient evidence, solely on the basis that the claimant has not fulfilled the onus of proof. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The Board's inquisitorial mandate.

A panel has a duty to consider all potential grounds for a refugee claim that arise on the evidence and relevant law
Even though the burden of proof rests on a claimant to show that they meet the requirements to be accorded protection, this does not mean that they are obliged to frame their case using the terminology of refugee law or by citing particular cases or statutory provisions. The Board “has a duty to consider all potential grounds for a refugee claim that arise on the evidence, even when they are not raised by the applicant”. Cases should be decided based on all of the law that binds the Board, not just the law that the parties happen to put in front of a panel. This principle is reflected in the UNHCR Handbook, which provides that it is not the duty of a claimant to identify the reasons for their persecution:"Often the applicant himself may not be aware of the reasons for the persecution feared. It is not, however, his duty to analyze his case to such an extent as to identify the reasons in detail. It is for the examiner, when investigating the facts of the case, to ascertain the reason or reasons for the persecution feared and to decide whether the definition in the 1951 Convention is met with in this respect."See further: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing and Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 22 - Specialized Knowledge.

Based on this principle, evidence of political activities in Canada should be considered by the panel whether or not the claimant specifically raises a sur place claim. Similarly, if the evidence suggests a risk of gender-based persecution, the member must assess this risk, even if it is not explicitly alleged. In every case in which the RPD concludes that a claimant has suffered past persecution, but there has been a change of country conditions, the Board is obligated under s. 108(4) to consider whether the evidence presented establishes that there are "compelling reasons" as contemplated by that subsection. This obligation arises whether or not the claimant expressly invokes this subsection: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 64 - Applications to Vacate or to Cease Refugee Protection.

This obligation can have implications for the Board's duty to inquire into a claim; in Eke v. Canada, the court commented that "as no questions were asked about the potential motives for the attacks, [the RAD] did not have sufficient evidence through the RPD's interrogatories to properly assess the issues on its own." See further: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The Board's inquisitorial mandate.

The Member's power to conduct research and find facts
As a starting point, the Divisions of the Board are creatures of statute, “and as such, [a Division] has no powers, rights and duties save those bestowed on it by the Act”. The Refugee Protection Division, the Refugee Appeal Division and the Immigration Division and each member of those Divisions have the powers and authority of a commissioner appointed under Part I of the Inquiries Act and may do any other thing they consider necessary to provide a full and proper hearing. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/165 - Powers of a Member and Canadian Refugee Procedure/170 - Proceedings.

The RPD and RAD may also convene conferences and may require the parties to give any information or provide any document, at or before the conference: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 24 - Conferences.

A panel of the Board may consider judicial notice, specialized knowledge, generally recognized facts, and other sources of knowledge: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 22 - Specialized Knowledge.

Panels are also entitled to rely on "common sense". Common sense necessarily involves importing considerations arising not from the evidence itself but from a decision maker's accumulated life experience. That said, common sense is far from a catch-all phrase that licenses any form of reasoning.

When a member determines that it is necessary to consult social media in the adjudication of a proceeding, the Division must channel this type of research through the Board's Research Directorate in accordance with the Procedures for Requesting Research on Individuals Using Social Media Sources.

In any research it conducts, the RPD is to follow the Instructions for Gathering and Disclosing Information for Refugee Protection Division Proceedings. The Instructions note that while RPD members are responsible for identifying information needed for the adjudication of a claim and may gather information, the Research Directorate is primarily responsible for gathering information. The Instructions set out general principles related to the gathering and disclosing of information, as well as specific instructions. These principles apply to how to Division has committed to collecting information regarding a claim, including that: 1. Responsibility to present supporting evidence rests with the parties. This responsibility remains even when the RPD decides to obtain information other than that provided by the parties.

2. To ensure a fair determination of a refugee claim, the assigned member requires all the relevant evidence whether such evidence may be favourable or prejudicial to any party.

3. The RPD will gather information through a transparent and standard process to ensure fairness in decision-making.

4. The assigned members will request claimant specific information and use such information only where they complete a risk assessment and are satisfied that there is no serious possibility that gathering the information would endanger the life, liberty or security of the claimant or any other person.

...

6. The information will be sought by the RPD only in instances where the information is deemed relevant to a determinative issue in the claim, can be obtained in a timely manner, and is likely to result in obtaining new or conclusive information. ... There is a similar document for the RAD: Instructions for Gathering and Disclosing Information for Refugee Appeal Division Proceedings. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/110-111 - Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division.

The Member has wide latitude to question claimants in an inquisitorial process
The text Judicial Review of Administrative Action in Canada provides that particular latitude will be given to tribunals to question where the matter is not adversarial, as with most refugee proceedings:"Extensive and 'energetic' questioning alone by tribunal members will not in itself give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. And particular latitude is likely to be given to tribunals operating in a non-adversarial setting, such as refugee determination hearings, where there is no one appearing to oppose the claim."The nature of the mandate that decision-makers have in inquisitorial RSD processes is summarized by Rebecca Hamlin as follows:"The inquisitorial form requires much more active decision makers. Instead of placing the responsibility for the collection of evidence and the presentation of arguments on the disputing parties themselves, the inquisitorial process combines the role of investigator and decision-maker into one. RSD is inquisitorial if the asylum seeker goes before a decision maker who both researches and decides the claim."That said, there are limits on appropriate questioning. For example:

 * A Member may not approach questioning with a discriminatory or hostile attitude: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to an unbiased decision-maker.
 * A refugee claim is not a memory test and an applicant's failure to recall dates may not appropriately be the foundation of a credibility finding. This principle would seem to have implications for the type of questions rightly asked by a panel.
 * A decision maker must be scrupulous about not trenching on privileged matters. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/170 - Proceedings.
 * A decision maker must approach the case with an open mind: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to an impartial decision-maker.

Evidence is primarily presented in written form in the Canadian process
A hearing is an opportunity for a claimant to complete their evidence and not to introduce new and important facts to their story. The Basis of Claim form is already to include "everything important for [their] claim", as stated on the form - Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 3-13 - Information and Documents to be Provided.

Furthermore, the purpose of an oral hearing before the Refugee Protection Division is not for a claimant to repeat everything that is in their Basis of Claim form. As per the Chairperson Guidelines 7: Concerning Preparation and Conduct of a Hearing in the Refugee Protection Division, "questions that are answered by the claimant just repeating what is written in the BOC Form do not help the Member." Instead, if the information on the form reliably establishes that the claimant meets the criteria to receive protection, then an oral hearing need not be held (See Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 23 - Allowing a Claim Without a Hearing). The purpose of an oral hearing is to test and explore the evidence presented, or lack thereof, where it is necessary to do so. This is in contrast to the practice in some other jurisdictions; for example, in Finland the practice is to have a portion of their asylum interviews in which the claimant is expected to state the grounds for claiming asylum and disclose evidence to support that claim through free narration.

It is also not always necessary for a panel to confront a party regarding deficiencies in their evidence. For example, in Ati v. Canada the court concluded that it was proper for the RPD to have concluded that a party did not meet their onus as a result of a lack of evidence, and that it was procedurally fair for the RPD to have done so even where the panel did not ask why such evidence was not presented. For more on this issue, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing.

There is a shared duty of fact-finding in refugee matters
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees states in their handbook that there is a shared duty of fact-finding between a claimant and the examiner: "In most cases a person fleeing from persecution will have arrived with the barest necessities and very frequently even without personal documents. Thus, while the burden of proof in principle rests on the applicant, the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts is shared between the applicant and the examiner." States must consider persons exercising their right to asylum honestly and with due diligence so as to not violate their obligation of non-refoulement. See also: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Principles for the interpretation of refugee procedure.

National Documentation Packages
One of the ways that this principle is implemented in practice is through packages of information that states compile on the countries of origin against which claimants are filing claims. It is an international norm that states ensure that precise and up-to-date information from various sources, such as the UNHCR and knowledgeable NGOs, is made available to the personnel responsible for examining applications and taking decisions. This information will concern the general situation prevailing in the countries of origin against which applications of asylum are being made. For the authority of the RAD to disclose such information, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/110-111 - Appeal to Refugee Appeal Division.

That said, it is generally expected that a claimant will bring the passages that they are relying on to the attention of the decision maker; the Federal Court has held that the RPD "is not obliged to comb through every document listed in the National Document Package in the hope of finding passages that may support the claim and specifically address why they do not, in fact, support the claim". When conducting a judicial review of a PRRA decision, the court commented that "It is not for the Officer, who has many applications to adjudicate, to comb through all available National Documentation Package evidence looking for something that might establish risk for the Applicant. Rather, the onus lies with the Applicant to demonstrate to the Officer the basis for the risk claimed, he must include - or at minimum point to - the relevant country condition evidence."

Furthermore, the Board should consider the most recent version of the National Documentation Package available at the time that it makes its decision. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 31-43 - Documents.

Claimant-specific research
Another way that Canada fulfils this obligation is through claimant-specific research. The RAD provides the following as examples of where it may engage in such research: where the RPD record and information provided by the parties fail to resolve certain issues that are before the RAD and if new issues arise. The Board has committed to using the following process when engaging in such research pre-hearing: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to a fair hearing.

For a discussion of whether (and when) a panel may be obliged to engage in such claimant-specific research, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The Board's inquisitorial mandate.

The Board must ensure that certain claimants are assisted to make their cases
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees states in their handbook that the scope of the shared duty of fact-finding between a claimant and the examiner will vary depending on the nature of the case: "While the burden of proof in principle rests on the applicant, the duty to ascertain and evaluate all the relevant facts is shared between the applicant and the examiner. Indeed, in some cases, it may be for the examiner to use all the means at [their] disposal to produce the necessary evidence in support of the application." What are those cases in which an examiner is to go to greater lengths to produce such evidence?

There is widespread recognition that certain types of claimants may be particularly prejudiced in presenting their cases and that in such circumstances this may affect the onus that is placed on the claimant to provide corroboration of their claim. Indeed, the Code of Conduct for Members of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada provides that "Members must take reasonable measures to accommodate all participants in a proceeding so that they may participate effectively." The UNHCR stipulates that "procedures should be in place to identify and assist asylum seekers with specific needs."

Minors and those entitled to designated representatives
One such category of claimants is those whose ability to appreciate the nature of the proceedings is impaired, either because they are incompetent or a minor. The principal way that such assistance is provided in the Board's process is through the appointment of a designated representative for the person: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 20 - Designated Representatives.

The failure to appoint a designated representative in a refugee protection proceeding, when one is required by the rules, is a violation of procedural fairness. As the court stated in Kurija v. Canada, “I place the proper representation of young immigrant claimants in refugee proceedings on the same plane as concerns over bias of a decision-maker. By this I mean that it is a ‘knock-out’ issue requiring the decision to be set aside, and furthermore an issue on which new evidence is admissible after the fact for the purpose of determining the partiality of the decision-maker, or in this case, the age of the claimant.” Similarly, in Ravi v. Canada the claim of an Applicant who had severe mental health issues related to schizophrenia, psychosis and potential alcohol dependency was reopened on the basis that it was unfair to assess the Applicant’s credibility, and his case more broadly, when he had significant mental illness issues at the hearing, and lacked a designated representative.

Furthermore, the UNHCR states that determining the claim of a minor "may call for a liberal application of the benefit-of-the-doubt principle".

Claimants in detention
Another category of claimant which may require special assistance is those who are in detention at the time that they are preparing for, or attending, their refugee hearing. There are particular access to justice issues for claimants in detention, who have consistently been identified as being among those who have the greatest difficulty accessing legal counsel. The UN Committee Against Torture, in its General Comment on non-refoulement, has listed this as one situation in which the burden of proof should reverse, and it should fall on the state to rebut the claimant's assertions where the author of the complaint has faced difficulties in obtaining evidence to substantiate their claim as a result of their deprivation of liberty: "[W]hen the complainant is in a situation where he/she cannot elaborate on his/her case, for instance, when the complainant ... is deprived of his/her liberty, the burden of proof is reversed and it is up to the State party concerned to investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the communication is based."For further discussion of this, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rule 30 - Claimant or Protected Person in Custody.

Self-represented claimants
See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 14-16 - Counsel of Record.

Where a claimant has no possibility of obtaining documentation relating to their allegation
Where a claimant has no possibility of obtaining documentation relating to their allegation, fairness may require the Board to assist a claimant to make their case. The UN Committee Against Torture, in its General Comment on non-refoulement, has listed this as one situation in which the burden of proof should reverse, and it should fall on the state to rebut the claimant's assertions where the author of the complaint has faced difficulties in obtaining evidence to substantiate their claim: "[W]hen the complainant is in a situation where he/she cannot elaborate on his/her case, for instance, when the complainant has demonstrated that he/she has no possibility of obtaining documentation relating to his/her allegation of torture..., the burden of proof is reversed and it is up to the State party concerned to investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the communication is based."In Jankovic v. Canada the Federal Court held that the RPD breached procedural fairness by not taking steps to acquire information where it appeared that the information was in a document that had been submitted to Canadian authorities:"The Applicant seeks the RPD’s assistance to obtain a document that has presumably been submitted to Canadian authorities, who have thus far failed to respond to the Applicant’s ATIP request. The document in question is not in the possession of the Applicant, but instead is in the possession of the Canadian authorities. The Applicant is not in a position to force the Canadian authorities to produce the document to the RPD, only the Minister would be able to do so, should he so choose. Further, the Minister has relied on the Interpol Zagreb letter to seek the Applicant’s exclusion from refugee protection – the same letter whose accuracy is now put into question by the very document that the Applicant requires assistance to obtain. ... Given all these circumstances, and given the importance of the Adjustment Letter to the Applicant’s claim, the RPD’s conclusion that verifying the information contained in the Interpol letter did not fall within its role was not only unreasonable, it was a breach of procedural fairness."This is akin to the Federal Court's reasoning in Abdallah v. Canada in which the court concluded that it was unfair for the RAD not to have assisted the Applicant to obtain an original document held by the CBSA: [5]  It is clear from the RAD’s decision that the RAD came to a negative credibility finding with respect to the identity documents evidence. Counsel for the Applicant argues that had the RAD allowed the Applicant to verify the genuineness of the documents through requesting the originals from the CBSA, the outcome might have been different. If the identity documents were proved to be genuine, it could have an impact on the conclusions drawn. I accept this argument.

[6]  On the facts of this particular case, I find it was unreasonable for the RAD not to have assisted the Applicant to obtain the original SNC from the CBSA, particularly when the authenticity of the SNC was questioned by only viewing a copy. The Applicant asked for fairness since she was helpless in obtaining the original SNC; fairness was not granted. In my opinion, this action constitutes a breach of the duty of fairness owed to the Applicant. However, the Federal Court of Appeal notes that it will not always be necessary for a claimant to have the Board's assistance to obtain a document from CBSA; in Singh v. Canada, the court noted that the appellant "could have obtained a copy [of a document - his diploma] from the CBSA and submitted it himself as evidence to the RPD."

A related example arises from Ali v. Canada, a case in which the Federal Court held that the RPD breached procedural fairness when it denied the applicant's request for further information about the source and methodology used by the Minister in obtaining and comparing the photographs, thereby blocking the applicant’s attempts to test the reliability of the evidence being used against him.

To what extent does a panel of the Division have a duty to inquire into the claim?
Ordinarily, the onus to establish their claim rests upon the applicant. It will suffice for a panel to identify the issues and ask open-ended questions about the main points for a claimant to have had a fair opportunity to present their case. For example, in Singh v. Canada, the court stated: "It is clear, later in the hearing, that the female Applicant was asked open-ended questions as to whether there were any reasons why she would not wish to move to any of the IFAs and had the option to address the impacts of her rape had she wished to. The RAD, therefore, did not err". See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The Board's inquisitorial mandate. However, in some cases a panel has a duty to inquire into a claim.

The Board should consider the most up-to-date country conditions evidence
Where a new National Documentation Package is released by the Board's research unit prior to a panel rendering a decision, the panel should consider it. In Zhao v. Canada, the court held that the Board should consider the most recent information on country conditions.

Procedural fairness dictates that the parties should have an opportunity to present submissions and evidence on the new documents if they include material new information. As such, disclosure of an updated NDP is not required in all cases, only where they include material new information. This principle is reflected in the IRB Policy on National Documentation Packages in Refugee Determination Proceedings, which provides that the RAD will disclose to the parties new NDP documents only when they wish to rely upon them. As such, while the Federal Court holds that procedural fairness obligations can be met simply by "[disclosing] the most recent NDP and [giving] the Applicants an opportunity to respond and make submissions", the IRB's policy quoted above appears to specify that the RAD will instead only provide specific documents that it wishes to rely on. In other words, when considering the most recent NDP, the RAD must also notify the parties if there are material updates on which it intends to rely, and grant the parties the possibility to make additional representations.

That said, the Board is not generally required to look for evidence on its own in these documents to support either the claimant's or Minister's arguments and propositions. For example, it is not the role of the RAD to address concerns relating to the reasonableness of an IFA when such concerns are not raised by applicants. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing.

For an additional discussion of this issue, see:

 * Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing
 * Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing
 * Canadian Refugee Procedure/RPD Rules 31-43 - Documents
 * Canadian Refugee Procedure/RAD Rules Part 1 - Rules Applicable to Appeals Made by a Person Who Is the Subject of an Appeal

=== A panel is not required to tell the applicant that their evidence is insufficient or ask the applicant to provide additional evidence, but it may elicit information where this is necessary to determine whether the claimant is a refugee === Refugee determination as a process of inquiry requires that Members ensure that they are adequately informed in order to determine whether the claimant is a Convention refugee. While there are a number of policy statements indicating that it may be advisable for Members to solicit additional information in particular cases, the law appears to be adequately captured by the Federal Court's statement in Mbengani v. Canada that a panel is not required to tell the applicant that their evidence is insufficient or ask the applicant to provide additional evidence. While that decision involved a PRRA proceeding, the principle would apply with equal force to the RPD. That said, there are policy statements made to the effect that where there is a lack of evidence in a particular case, a Member may have a duty to elicit it. The Member's inquisitorial role means that they have a duty not only to hear whatever evidence comes before them, but, ultimately, according to the academic Hathaway, that they must inform themselves sufficiently to "determine whether or not the [claimant] is a Convention refugee." To this end, in 1990s the IRB developed what was sometimes called the “Specialized Board of Inquiry Model”, in which the CRDD members were proactive in pre-hearing file review, preliminary issue identification, claim screening, scheduling hearings, and the acquisition of information necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of a refugee claim. Indeed, to this day the Code of Conduct for Members of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada provides that "Members shall make each decision on the merits of the case, based on thorough preparation, the assessment of evidence properly before the member and the application of the relevant law."

The panel should confront a claimant and probe where it harbours credibility concerns
When it comes to a Member's obligations with respect to the acquisition of information necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of a refugee claim, the court has commented on a Member's duty to enquire by stating that "the RPD has a responsibility to prompt and probe" where it harbours a concern about credibility in certain circumstances:"[I]t was unreasonable for the RAD to draw an adverse inference from the Applicant’s bare “no” in this second brief exchange. This was an issue where considerably more questioning was required in order to assess the true depth of the Applicant’s knowledge. Indeed, the RPD has a responsibility to prompt and probe where it harbours a concern like this and the RAD has a corresponding responsibility to hold the RPD to that interrogatorial standard."The purpose of a hearing is in part for the panel to complete the record to a sufficient degree for the panel to conduct its assessment. If a panel is to make a negative credibility determination, it needs to sufficiently inform itself of the facts in order to make that determination. RAD Member Ayanna Roberts commented that an intersectional analysis should consider the society in which the person is operating and any barriers that the person may encounter, but that in the case before her, the RPD had failed to consider relevant factors in its analysis when it drew a negative credibility inference, specifically noting that the personal beliefs and openness to sexual diversity of the families that the appellant had been living with were not canvassed during the hearing.

The panel is obliged to test the evidence where this is necessary in order to ascertain the truth
Where evidence is provided by a claimant, there may be an obligation on the Board to test that evidence. Members are responsible for making the inquiries necessary, including questioning the claimant, to determine the validity of the claim. As the Board's legal services department puts it in its paper on Assessment of Credibility in Claims for Refugee Protection, RPD members have a duty to get at the truth concerning the claims they hear. The law “imposes a duty upon RPD members to assess the credibility of refugee claimants.” As Justice Nadon stated in Maksudur v. Canada, "In most refugee claims, the prime issue, if not the only issue, is whether the story related by the [claimant] is true. Consequently, Board members have a duty to the [claimant] and to Canada to employ their best endeavours in the pursuit of that goal to discover the truth." Justice Mosley writes that "a close examination of the merits of the claim is consistent with the nature of the process and the role[] of the member". The Board states that there is a duty to ascertain the truth, and relevant questions should not be left in the air through the failure of counsel to ask those questions. This is consistent with the role of the Refugee Protection Division, as envisaged in the report from Rabbi Plaut that led to the IRB's founding, with that report stating: "a determination that a claimant is a refugee requires an assessment of credibility, for the [Division] must satisfy itself that the facts as asserted by the claimant are true." Plaut goes on to note about refugee status determination that "the whole exercise falters and justice is thwarted if the truth is not elicited".

There are many ways in which a panel may seek to fulfill its mandate to test evidence; in general, one technique that is used by the government is to seek to corroborate the information. See further: Canadian Refugee Procedure/170 - Proceedings

A panel may have a duty to contact a witness to obtain information where it has credibility concerns
When it comes to whether the Board is obliged to conduct claimant-specific research, or to reach out to a potential witness during a hearing, there is a split in the Federal Court jurisprudence about whether and in what circumstances the Board has any such obligation. One line of jurisprudence is represented by the decision of Justice Russell in Paxi v Canada wherein he commented that "for the Board to take issue with the authenticity of the document yet make no further inquiries despite having the appropriate contact information to do so is a reviewable error." This appears to place a higher onus on the Board to inquire into a claim and solicit independent evidence. A contrasting line of jurisprudence is exemplified by the decision of Mr. Justice Roy in Lutonadio v. Canada that endorsed the following statement:"I disagree that an administrative tribunal has an obligation to contact a witness to obtain information. This is not its role. The onus rests with the Applicant to bring forward evidence it intends to rely upon and in doing so, always to put the best foot forward. It is not up to the RPD to chase down evidence from a witness to be satisfied that the document is authentic and that a person exists who has sworn to the truth of its contents before someone authorized to confirm that fact. This onus rests with the Applicant who should provide the necessary information authenticating the author and the document."Both lines of jurisprudence continue to be followed. For example, in the 2022 decision Zhang v Canada, the court commented about immigration officers that "there does appear to be an expectation that an Officer will take it upon themselves to simply use the contact information provided to verify the authenticity of the evidence that is provided", citing Paxi v Canada in support of this proposition. Relatedly, the 2022 decision Jankovic v. Canada held that fairness will "sometimes require the RPD to take a small, not-too-onerous, step of making further inquiry into the information relevant to a claim."

There are limits to the Board's onus to inquire into matters. In Ramirez v. Canada, the claimant argued on judicial review that the Board Member should have considered whether counselling in the proposed IFA location would be likely to adequately address the applicant’s mental health issues. The court rejected this argument, concluding that "such an analysis would have been speculative and well beyond the RAD’s expertise."

A panel has a duty to enquire into matters where the onus for adducing evidence falls onto the Board
As a general matter, a claimant has an onus to show that they meet the criteria to be recognized as a refugee: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The Board's inquisitorial mandate. However, in the Canadian system there also exist legal issues where the burden of proof does not fall on the claimant, for example:

 * The Minister (or the Board, if the Minister is not participating in a hearing) bears the onus to establish whether or not a refugee claimant comes within one of the Convention's exclusion clauses.
 * If the Board finds that the agent of persecution is the state, then the burden to establish that there is an IFA within that country where the state persecution is not happening or where a claimant would be protected by the state rests on the party asserting it and not on the claimant.
 * If the Board or the Minister is asserting that a claimant has status in a third country, the burden to establish that they have an entitlement to citizenship pursuant to that country's laws rests on the party asserting the proposition, not the claimant.

Where the record indicates that something is a possible concern, and the onus for establishing that matter falls to the Board, the RPD should conduct a sufficiently thorough questioning to adequately assess the facts and appropriate conclusion, for example an individual is excluded under the Refugee Convention. The failure to conduct such an examination, for example where the RPD does not inquire into the matter and simply relies on the absence of sufficient evidence on the record to determine that exclusion has not been established, is an error. The Board cannot base some findings, for example that there is an internal flight alternative, in the absence of sufficient evidence, solely on the basis that the claimant has not fulfilled the onus of proof.

The panel has a duty to enquire into matters related to the fairness of the proceedings if there is an indication of a procedural fairness issue
For example, in Gallardo v. Canada the Federal Court commented that the Division should have inquired into the claimant's capacity to represent himself given counsel’s statements that the claimant had not been properly prepared and the claim had been inadequately put together without the assistance of counsel. The Court held that the Division erred in not so inquiring. In Gorgulu v. Canada, the Federal Court concluded that a decision maker should have alerted an applicant to what appeared to be an oversight in their submissions, stating that the "reasons fail to demonstrate that they considered the consequences of not providing the applicant with an opportunity to rectify what may very well have been an oversight concerning important information in support of his PRRA application". The Board should also verify that representatives appearing before the Board are authorized to do so: Canadian Refugee Procedure/Counsel of Record.

The Refugee Appeal Division must independently assess claims
The RAD is obliged to conduct an independent review of the case, focusing on the errors identified by the appellant. This has implications for the role of the RAD; the RAD cannot be expected to examine every piece of evidence and try to draw out arguments that could support an asylum claim. Simply because the RAD expresses agreement with the RPD’s reasoning does not mean it failed to undertake its own assessment or analysis. For more detail, see: Canadian Refugee Procedure/RAD Rules Part 1 - Rules Applicable to Appeals Made by a Person Who Is the Subject of an Appeal.

That said, the Board Member must engage with evidence that, on its face, appears to contradict their key findings about the case. See: Canadian Refugee Procedure/The right to be heard and the right to a fair hearing.