Refugee Appeal New Evidence Rejection Upheld

The Federal Court dismissed Devon Wayne Wiltshire’s judicial review application after finding the Refugee Appeal Division reasonably refused to admit refugee appeal new evidence about his claimed lack of status in St. Lucia. The Court also found the RAD did not err by declining to hold an oral hearing.

Case Summary

• Case & citation: Wiltshire v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 1351, court file IMM-19553-24.
• Decision date & judge: November 3, 2026, by The Honourable Mr. Justice A. Grant.
• Issue: Whether the RAD reasonably refused affidavits concerning the applicant’s fraudulent St. Lucian passport and alleged lack of St. Lucian citizenship.
• Outcome: The application for judicial review was dismissed, with no costs and no question certified.

Refugee claim turned on asserted St. Lucian citizenship

Mr. Wiltshire, a citizen of Guyana, claimed refugee protection based on an asserted fear of the “Phantom Squad,” which he described as a criminal gang supported by Guyana’s governing PPP/C political party. He arrived in Canada in 2008 after living in St. Lucia between 2003 and 2006 and obtaining a St. Lucian passport.

When he made his refugee claim in 2019, Mr. Wiltshire stated that he was a citizen of both Guyana and St. Lucia and provided his St. Lucian passport as identity evidence. The Refugee Protection Division rejected his claim on June 3, 2024, finding there was no forward-looking risk of harm in St. Lucia.

On appeal to the RAD, Mr. Wiltshire submitted two affidavits saying he was not a St. Lucian citizen and had obtained the passport fraudulently while fleeing the Phantom Squad. He also said that an immigration consultant had advised him to conceal his lack of status in St. Lucia.

RAD found the affidavits did not meet IRPA conditions

The RAD considered whether the affidavits could be admitted under subsection 110(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It assessed whether the information arose after the RPD rejected the claim, was not reasonably available at that time, or could not reasonably have been expected to have been presented before the RPD decision.

It concluded the proposed evidence met none of those conditions. The RAD noted that Mr. Wiltshire knew the information throughout his time in Canada and during his refugee claim, and had opportunities to correct the record before the RPD decision.

Those opportunities included the period after the RPD advised him in September 2023 that the consultant was not properly qualified to represent him. Mr. Wiltshire had retained new counsel by the January 2024 RPD hearing, and counsel made submissions after that hearing, including on his asserted risk in St. Lucia.

Court found the RAD’s analysis reasonable

The parties agreed that reasonableness was the applicable standard of review. Justice Grant found no error in the RAD’s conclusion that the information about Mr. Wiltshire’s lack of status in St. Lucia was not new for the purposes of subsection 110(4).

The Court accepted that Mr. Wiltshire may have had a reasonable basis for concealing his lack of status when entering Canada in 2008 because of his asserted fear in Guyana. However, the Court found it reasonable for the RAD to expect disclosure before the RPD rejected the claim, given the time between the refugee claim and hearing, the change in representation, and the further period before the RPD decision.

Justice Grant also noted that St. Lucian status was not peripheral to the claim. It was a focal point at the RPD and determinative of the RPD’s decision. The Court concluded that the RAD’s reasons showed a transparent, intelligible and justified application of subsection 110(4) to the proposed evidence.

No oral hearing was required after evidence refusal

Mr. Wiltshire also argued that the RAD should have held an oral hearing under subsection 110(6) of the IRPA. The Court rejected that argument because the RAD had reasonably declined to admit the new evidence.

Without evidence in the record meeting the criteria for a hearing, the Court found no error in the RAD’s conclusion that it lacked authority to convene one. The judicial review application was dismissed.

What the decision means

This decision concerns the particular record before the Court and does not grant refugee protection or reconsider Mr. Wiltshire’s claim. It confirms the dismissal of his challenge to the RAD’s treatment of the proposed affidavits.

For refugee appeal practice, the judgment illustrates the importance of the statutory conditions governing new evidence before the RAD, particularly where information was known to an applicant before the RPD decision and the issue was central to the refugee claim.

Source: Federal Court Decisions