Can New Arguments Be Raised at Federal Court Judicial Review in Canada?

Can You Raise New Arguments at Federal Court That You Didn’t Raise Before?

Generally, no — Federal Court will not consider arguments in a judicial review application that were never raised before the administrative decision-maker being reviewed. A recent Federal Court decision, Martinez Mendez c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration), 2026 CF 1180 (CanLII) (read the decision), reinforces this principle clearly in the refugee protection context. If you skipped an argument at the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), you will likely be barred from relying on it at Federal Court.

What Is an Internal Flight Alternative and Why Does It Matter?

An Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) is a specific location within a claimant’s home country where they could live safely, without facing the persecution or risk they fled. If the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) or the RAD finds that a viable IFA exists, a refugee claim will typically be rejected — even if the claimant faced genuine danger in their home region. The IFA analysis is therefore one of the most critical parts of any refugee determination, and challenging it effectively requires putting all relevant evidence forward at the earliest opportunity.

What Happened With the Medical and Psychological Evidence in This Case?

The claimant argued before Federal Court that the RAD had unreasonably ignored medical and psychological evidence when assessing the IFA. The court examined whether this argument had actually been advanced on appeal to the RAD. Because the claimant had not raised arguments about the effects of this evidence when appealing to the RAD, the Federal Court treated the point as a new issue — one that had not been properly before the RAD in the first place. Without that foundation, the court declined to find the RAD’s decision unreasonable on this basis.

This is a practical lesson: psychological and medical reports that speak to a claimant’s vulnerability or ability to relocate must be put to the RAD with clear arguments about what they establish. Submitting documents without making specific arguments about their significance is not enough.

Can Translation Errors From the Original Hearing Be Raised at Federal Court?

Not if they were never raised at the RAD first. In this case, the claimant attempted to argue at Federal Court that there had been interpretation errors during the original RPD hearing. The court classified this as a new issue — it had not been raised as a ground of appeal before the RAD. Following established principles from cases like Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v Alberta Teachers’ Association and R v Mian, the court refused to examine the translation argument on its merits. Procedural fairness concerns about interpretation must be surfaced at the earliest possible stage, not held in reserve for a later court application.

What Is the Scope of a RAD Appeal — Does the RAD Have to Go Beyond What You Argued?

No — the RAD is not required to conduct a broader analysis of IFA viability than what the parties actually argued on appeal. The court confirmed that the RAD’s role is to address the grounds of appeal put before it. Claimants sometimes assume that because the RAD conducts its own independent assessment, it will catch every possible issue. That assumption is risky. If you want the RAD to address a specific argument about an IFA location, you need to raise it explicitly in your appeal submissions.

Our Ontario immigration lawyers regularly assist clients in preparing RAD appeals and Federal Court judicial review applications, and understanding which arguments belong at which stage is one of the most important parts of that work.

What Standard Does Federal Court Apply When Reviewing a RAD Decision?

Federal Court reviews RAD decisions on a standard of reasonableness, following the Supreme Court of Canada’s framework in Vavilov. This means the court is not asking whether it would have reached the same conclusion as the RAD. Instead, it asks whether the RAD’s decision is internally coherent, justified, and falls within a range of acceptable outcomes. Courts give significant deference to the RAD’s expertise in refugee matters. This makes it even more important that all your strongest arguments are put before the RAD directly — because Federal Court is unlikely to substitute its own view unless the RAD’s reasoning is genuinely flawed.

If you are considering a judicial review of a negative RAD decision, understanding what the court can and cannot do is essential before deciding how to proceed.

Questions and Records to Discuss With a Lawyer

• Were all grounds of challenge — including medical, psychological, and procedural concerns — raised in the RAD appeal submissions?
• If there were interpretation or translation problems at the RPD hearing, was that issue brought to the RAD’s attention on appeal?
• Does the record before the RAD include all supporting documents, and were specific arguments made about what each document establishes?
• Is the basis for challenging the IFA finding clearly articulated, including evidence about conditions at the proposed alternative location?
• What is the timeline for filing a judicial review application, given that strict deadlines apply after a RAD decision is issued?

If you have questions about a refugee decision or want to understand your options after a negative outcome, you are welcome to reach out to UL Lawyers through /connect to discuss your circumstances.

---

This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.