Federal Court Criticizes RAD’s Handling of Interpretation Errors and Lack of Independent Analysis

In the recent decision of Quinteros v Canada (MCI) 2025 FC 391, the Federal Court overturned a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision that had dismissed the asylum claim of a Chilean family. Justice Turley found two key errors in the RAD’s decision-making process: (1) its mishandling of interpretation errors at the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) hearing and (2) its failure to conduct an independent analysis of the applicants’ claim.

The applicants sought asylum in Canada, alleging risk in Chile due to the Principal Applicant’s family’s political history. They also claimed that they suffered harm as a result of targeted medical malpractice and faced general criminal violence. The RPD rejected their claim, finding that the risk of criminal violence was a generalized risk and not one that warranted protection under section 96 or subsection 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The RAD upheld the RPD’s decision.

Federal Court’s Key Findings

1. RAD’s Failure to Consider Interpretation Errors

One of the primary reasons the Federal Court granted the judicial review was the RAD’s refusal to consider new evidence regarding interpretation errors that allegedly occurred during the RPD hearing. The applicants had submitted an affidavit from an audit interpreter along with a corrected partial transcript to demonstrate errors in the translation of their testimony. However, the RAD dismissed this evidence on the basis that the applicants’ memorandum did not clearly articulate how the errors resulted in a breach of natural justice.

Justice Turley found this reasoning flawed. The Court emphasized that the applicants had complied with the Refugee Appeal Division Rules (RAD Rules) by submitting the required written statement and documentary evidence. Moreover, case law has established that the RAD is required to assess whether new evidence meets the admissibility criteria under subsection 110(4) of IRPA, even if the appellant’s memorandum does not explicitly address all aspects of admissibility (Benavides Quispe v Canada, 2021 FC 791). The Court criticized the RAD for prioritizing procedural formalities over substantive justice.

2. RAD’s Lack of Independent Analysis

The second major flaw in the RAD’s decision was its failure to conduct an independent assessment of the applicants’ claim. Instead of providing its own analysis, the RAD merely quoted large portions of the RPD’s decision and summarily dismissed the applicants’ arguments. This approach was found to be inadequate under Federal Court jurisprudence, which requires the RAD to “carry out its own analysis of the record” and explicitly state its findings (Huruglica v Canada, 2016 FCA 93; Gomes v Canada, 2020 FC 506).

Justice Turley noted that the RAD’s reasoning was largely a repetition of the RPD’s findings, without engaging with the applicants’ arguments in a meaningful way. Specifically, when addressing the applicants’ concerns regarding the RPD’s treatment of the criminal violence claim, the RAD merely copied nine paragraphs from the RPD’s decision before concluding that the RPD had properly assessed the applicants’ circumstances. The Court found that this approach fell short of the RAD’s duty to provide clear, independent reasoning.

Conclusion and Implications

The Federal Court allowed the judicial review and remitted the case for redetermination by a different panel of the RAD. This decision reinforces important principles in refugee law:

• The RAD must meaningfully consider new evidence that is properly submitted, especially when it relates to procedural fairness concerns such as interpretation errors.

• The RAD cannot merely defer to the RPD’s findings; it must conduct its own independent analysis and provide clear reasoning.

As this case moves forward, it will be important to see how the RAD reassesses the applicants’ claims in light of the Federal Court’s ruling.

Refugee matters are very complex. Having excellent representation makes all the difference. Contact Bjorna Shkurti if you want the very best representation!