Woolaston v.

Woolaston v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1973] SCR 102, 1972 CanLII 3 (SCC)

http://canlii.ca/t/1nfn2

• Application for PR by applicant within Canada; her student visa had expired by the time she had applied for PR
• At that time, she could not lawfully apply for PR from within Canada if unlawfully in Canada
• Evidence that she had tried to apply for PR prior to her student visa expiring, but was told that she could not apply herself and would be included on her husband’s (eventually rejected) application for PR
• The evidence on this point was confusing and unclear and came from an interview transcript with an officer
• Applicant did not mention this evidence before the Immigration Appeal Board, which is the board which made the decision
• The evidence was nonetheless part of the record
• The Court concluded as follows at page 108:
o I am unable to conclude that the Board ignored that evidence and thereby committed an error of law to be redressed in this Court. The fact that it was not mentioned in the Board’s reasons is not fatal to its decision. It was in the record to be weighed as to its reliability and cogency along with the other evidence in the case, and it was open to the Board to discount it or to disbelieve it.
o I am satisfied upon a review of the entire record that what has been presented as an error of law is properly a matter of fact upon which no appeal lies to this Court. It follows that the appeal of the wife must be dismissed, and in consequence that of the husband as well.

Woolaston cited by other case-law:

• See Hinzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1 FCR 561, 2006 FC 420 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1mzlz>

o [175]As a general rule, the Board does not have to specifically refer to every piece of evidence, and will be presumed to have considered all of the evidence in coming to its decision: see Woolaston v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, 1972 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1973] S.C.R. 102 and Hassan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.).

• See Rizk Hassaballa v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 489 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1rd89>

o [24] The respondent for his part notes that it is trite law that a decision-maker is presumed to have considered all of the evidence and that the assessment of weight to be given to the evidence is a matter within the decision-maker’s discretion and expertise (Woolaston v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1972 CanLII 3 (SCC), [1973] R.C.S. 102, Hassan v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 147 N.R. 317, [1992] F.C.J. No. 946 (QL)).

[25] On the issue of the selective use of the evidence, I agree with the respondent that the PRRA officer did refer to contradictory evidence, as she specifically listed examples of discrimination faced by Christians in Egypt.

• However, see Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1998 CanLII 8667 (FC), http://canlii.ca/t/49bh, Tab 12 of the “Updates” listed in PART C of the List of Common Authorities
o [15] The Court may infer that the administrative agency under review made the erroneous finding of fact “without regard to the evidence” from the agency’s failure to mention in its reasons some evidence before it that was relevant to the finding, and pointed to a different conclusion from that reached by the agency…

[17] However, the more important the evidence that is not mentioned specifically and analyzed in the agency’s reasons, the more willing a court may be to infer from the silence that the agency made an erroneous finding of fact “without regard to the evidence”: Bains v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 63 F.T.R. 312 (F.C.T.D.).