The legal framework for the requirement of corroborative evidence was proposed by Justice Grammond in ๐๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ข๐จ๐ฆ ๐ท ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ฅ๐ข (๐๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ป๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด๐ฉ๐ช๐ฑ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ช๐จ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ), 2020 ๐๐ 968.
To summarize, a decision-maker can only require corroborative evidence if:
1. The decision-maker clearly sets out an independent reason for requiring corroboration, such as doubts regarding the applicantโs credibility, the implausibility of the applicantโs testimony, or the fact that a large portion of the claim is based on hearsay;
2. The evidence could reasonably be expected to be available and, after being given an opportunity to do so, the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not obtaining it.
Justice Grammond also held that to safeguard against the possibility of corroboration becoming an open-ended requirement, the two-step framework ought not to be reversed. To do so would hollow out the presumption of truthfulness established by the FCA in ๐๐ข๐ญ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฐ ๐ท ๐๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฐ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ช๐จ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ.
The end result is that a decision-maker must always identify an independent ground for requiring corroboration, for example, where a large portion of the claim is based on hearsay.
๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ข๐ณ๐ณ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ฑ ๐๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฐ๐ต๐ถ is a Toronto based law firm with a trained immigration attorney, excited to take you through the immigration documentation process to ensure it is as seamless as possible. Get it right this time!
๐ฅ๐ฒ๐พ๐๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐น๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ป๐ผ๐.๐๐ฐ๐ต๐ฆ: ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ท๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ข ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ข๐ญ ๐จ๐ถ๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ถ๐ฃ๐ซ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต ๐ฎ๐ข๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ. ๐๐ฆ๐จ๐ข๐ญ ๐ข๐ฅ๐ท๐ช๐ค๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ถ๐จ๐ฉ๐ต ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ต๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ ๐จ๐ถ๐ช๐ฅ๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ, ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ท๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ค๐ช๐ณ๐ค๐ถ๐ฎ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ฏ๐ค๐ฆ.
