D.P. v MCI 2010 FC 533 PRRA fresh evidence

The Court held that the tribunal erred in refusing to receive the fresh evidence because as it was clearly relevant the officer failed to explain why it was not fresh evidence that could be considered:18 The Officer's rejection of the Committee's letter as "new evidence" ignores the ratio in Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FCA 385. The letter was relevant because it was "capable of proving or disproving a fact that is relevant to the claim of protection". The letter was new evidence in that it was "capable of ... contradicting a finding of fact by the RPD (including a credibility finding)". Therefore, the rejection of the letter was an error of law. There was no analysis of the "new evidence" criteria.