Did the CRDD err by failing to consider the defences of superior orders and duress?
[37] The applicant submits the CRDD is obliged to consider the defences of superior orders and duress even though the applicant did not raise these defences in argument before the CRDD. In the applicant’s submission, he bears the burden of bringing forth all the facts to support these defences. He stresses, however, that the panel has an obligation to consider the defences raised by those facts. [38] After a careful review of the transcript, I find that there is no factual foundation for the defences. Accordingly, the CRDD did not err in this regard. [39] Counsel for the applicant proposed a question for certification concerning the defences of superior orders and duress. Given the absence of a factual foundation, the question will not be certified. [40] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed. “Dolores M. Hansen” J.F.C.C. OTTAWA, ONTARIO May 8, 2002 FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD COURT FILE NO.: IMM-5
