Date: 19980804
Docket: IMM-3329-97
BETWEEN:
OMASALAPE OLALANKE AKINGBOLA
and IBUKUN AKINGBOLA and
BIDEMI OLANREWAJU AKINGBOLA
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED, J.: (orally)
[1] I have not been persuaded that either of the grounds on which counsel for the applicants bases his argument constitute a reason for setting aside the CRDD decision.
[2] With respect to the first argument, if the qualifications of the expert witness, Mr. Owens Wiwa, concerning MOSOP, are to be challenged, I think it is incumbent upon counsel to do so, first, at the hearing before the CRDD, so that both the CRDD and the case presenting officer can address the concern at that stage.
[3] The CRDD is not bound by any technical rules of evidence. It has a certain expertise and it accepted the evidence of Mr. Wiwa, on the basis of its understanding that he was a credible source for such information. In light of the fact that no objection was made at the hearing that he was not qualified to give the evidence, I am not prepared to set the Board's decision aside, at this point, because the record does not contain a detailed account of his qualifications .
[4] With respect to the second argument, I am not persuaded that there is anything in the record that establishes that the CRDD took account of evidence from the first hearing that was not put to the applicant and to which she was not given an opportunity to respond. With respect to the particular passage of the decision to which counsel referred, I go back to page 529 of the tribunal record, (page 128 of the transcript), where counsel with admirable candour admits that his client had made statements that contradicted Mr. Wiwa's evidence:
| "...it's public record, it was testimony that she had given. But I don't do her any service by saying, that she didn't say certain things at the past hearing. |
| You have access to those tapes so it would be ridiculous for me to give you anything than a clean bill...So the true response is that, those questions were asked, yes, and her responses were in contradiction to the actual age that was provided on Mr. Dobee. I mean the information we have he's 26, she had him pegged at a much higher age. And that's exactly what, there was some contradiction." (underlining added) |
[5] In the light of the admission that there was some contradiction, I can not find either in the text of the CRDD decision or in the tribunal record (particularly the transcript of the hearing) any evidence to support the claim that the CRDD made use of evidence from the first hearing that was not put to the applicant.
[6] For the reasons given I must dismiss this application.
"B. Reed"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
August 4, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-3329-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: OMASALAPE OLALANKE AKINGBOLA and IBUKUN AKINGBOLA and BIDEMI OLANREWAJU AKINGBOLA |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: REED, J.
DATED: TUESDAY, AUGUST 4, 1998
APPEARANCES: Mr. Lawrence Cohen
For the Applicants
Ms. Bridget O'Leary
For the Respondent
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Lawrence Cohen |
| Barrister & Solicitor |
| 347 Bay Street, Suite 902 |
| Toronto, Ontario |
| M5H 2R7 |
For the Applicants
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19980804
Docket: IMM-3329-97
Between:
| OMASALAPE OLALANKE AKINGBOLA and IBUKUN AKINGBOLA and BIDEMI OLANREWAJU AKINGBOLA |
Applicants
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER