Case snapshot
At a glance
- Case
- When Can a Refugee Appeal Be Decided Without a Hearing in Ontario?
- Court / Tribunal
- FC
- Citation
- 2026 FC 950 ↗
- Date
- July 15, 2026
- Area of law
- Immigration Law
- Key issue
- Whether the Refugee Appeal Division applied the correct legal test when deciding to determine a refugee appeal on the record without holding an oral hearing under section 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
- Outcome
- The Federal Court granted judicial review, finding that the RAD had not properly applied the statutory test for dispensing with an oral hearing.
- Why it matters
- Refugee claimants who are denied an oral hearing at the RAD may have grounds for judicial review if the decision-maker failed to correctly apply the legal threshold for skipping that hearing.
Legal principle
The rule from this case
Under section 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Refugee Appeal Division has the power to hold an oral hearing when new evidence is admitted on appeal — but only if specific conditions are met. The Federal Court confirmed that this is not a discretionary free-for-all: the RAD must actually apply the correct legal test before deciding whether to proceed on the written record alone. When a decision-maker skips a required step in the analysis — or applies the wrong standard — the resulting decision can be sent back for reconsideration. For refugee claimants, this matters enormously because an oral hearing can be the difference between being believed and being rejected.
Important limits
What this does not mean
This decision does not mean that every refugee appellant is automatically entitled to an oral hearing before the RAD. The statute sets out specific conditions that must be satisfied before the RAD is required to hold one, and most RAD appeals continue to be decided on the written record. It also does not mean that a procedural error at the RAD will always lead to a different outcome. The case is typically sent back to the RAD to reconsider using the correct legal framework — the Federal Court does not substitute its own decision on the refugee claim itself.
Can the Refugee Appeal Division skip an oral hearing?
Yes — but only if the correct legal test is applied first. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) is generally permitted to decide appeals based on written submissions alone, without calling the parties to an in-person or virtual hearing. However, when new evidence has been admitted, section 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act sets out specific conditions that must be considered before the RAD can simply proceed on the record. The Federal Court’s decision in Abis v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2026 FC 950 (CanLII) makes clear that getting this step wrong is a reviewable error.
What is section 110(6) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
Section 110(6) is the provision that gives the RAD authority to hold an oral hearing on appeal. Under the general rule, RAD appeals are paper-based — the division reviews the record from the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) and any new evidence that has been admitted, then issues a written decision. Section 110(6) creates an exception: if new evidence is accepted and certain statutory conditions are satisfied, the RAD may convene a hearing. The question this case turned on is what happens when the RAD decides not to hold a hearing without properly working through those conditions.
What did the Federal Court decide in this case?
The Federal Court found that the RAD had not correctly applied the legal test under section 110(6) before proceeding without a hearing. Rather than confirming the outcome on the merits, the court sent the matter back to be reconsidered. This is the standard remedy on judicial review of immigration decisions: the Federal Court identifies the legal error and returns the file to the decision-maker to redo the analysis properly. Our Ontario immigration lawyers regularly assist clients in identifying exactly these kinds of procedural errors at the RAD.
Why does it matter whether the RAD holds an oral hearing?
For refugee claimants, an oral hearing can be critical. Refugee claims often turn on credibility — whether the decision-maker believes the applicant’s account of persecution or fear of return. A written record alone may not capture the full picture. When an appellant has new evidence that could change the outcome, the opportunity to appear and be questioned on that evidence may significantly affect the result. Being denied that opportunity without a proper legal basis is not a minor procedural footnote — it can determine whether someone is protected or removed.
What is judicial review and when can a refugee claimant use it?
Judicial review is the process by which the Federal Court examines whether a federal decision-maker — like the RAD — made a legal error. It is not an appeal on the facts; the court is not re-deciding the refugee claim from scratch. Instead, it asks whether the decision-maker followed the correct legal framework, considered the right factors, and reached a conclusion that is defensible in law. If you believe the RAD made a legal error in your case — including by wrongly skipping an oral hearing — you may have grounds to seek judicial review. Time limits are strict: you generally have 15 days from receiving a negative RAD decision to file. If you are in the Hamilton or Burlington area, our team handles judicial review applications for clients across Ontario.
What should refugee appellants watch for at the RAD?
Not every procedural concern rises to the level of a reviewable error, but there are specific red flags worth knowing. If the RAD admits new evidence on your appeal but then decides the matter entirely on the written record without explaining why a hearing is not warranted under section 110(6), that analysis — or the absence of it — may be challengeable. The court’s role is to ensure the RAD actually does the legal work the statute requires, not simply to reach whatever result seems convenient.
Practical takeaways for refugee appellants
- New evidence changes the analysis. If the RAD admits new evidence on your appeal, the question of whether a hearing is required under section 110(6) must be properly addressed — not assumed away.
- Watch the 15-day clock. Applications for leave and judicial review of RAD decisions must be filed within 15 days of receiving the decision. Missing this deadline is almost always fatal to your case.
- A paper-based RAD decision is not automatically valid. The RAD can decide on the record, but it must apply the correct legal framework to get there.
- Procedural errors can be grounds for judicial review. You do not need to show the RAD got the facts wrong — getting the legal test wrong is itself an error the Federal Court can correct.
- Get legal advice quickly. Immigration judicial review is technical and time-sensitive. If you received a negative RAD decision, speak to an immigration lawyer as soon as possible.
UL Lawyers offers a free initial consultation from our Burlington office and works with clients across Ontario on refugee and immigration matters. Whether you are dealing with a RAD decision, a work permit refusal, or another immigration issue, our team is ready to help — visit our immigration law practice page to learn more or to get in touch.
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.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
If the RAD declines to hold a hearing without properly applying the legal test under section 110(6) of the IRPA, that may be a reviewable error. You can apply to the Federal Court for judicial review, but you must act within 15 days of receiving the decision.
Yes, in limited circumstances. The RAD can accept new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of your RPD hearing, or that you could not reasonably have been expected to present earlier. Whether that new evidence triggers the right to an oral hearing depends on the specific conditions in section 110(6) of the IRPA.
The process typically takes several months to over a year, depending on the complexity of the case and the court's schedule. The first step — applying for leave — must happen within 15 days of a negative RAD decision, so acting quickly is essential.