In Ayaz v. Canada, we represented the Applicant, a Zikri from Pakistan.
At the refugee hearing, I had referenced the extensive evidence as to the treatment of a religious minority charged with blasphemy in Pakistan:
...the record before the Board included significant, credible documentary evidence that Pakistani courts fail to protect the rights of religious minorities, that individuals subjected to such charges may spend lengthy periods in detention and that torture of those in custody is commonplace. The Board erred by failing to have regard to this relevant and probative evidence.
For the Member to find that the Applicant would be afforded "due process" given the available country condition evidence was simply, in the words of Justice Snider, "unintelligible".
The Member, Ms. Luella Gaultier, also made an error by assuming (again without any evidentiary foundation) that the police in Pakistan would not do their job by forwarding the warrant against the Applicant to another jurisdiction within Pakistan:
There was not a single piece of evidence before the Board that would allow it to conclude that warrants are not routinely transferred or accessed electronically by police in other jurisdictions.
I am very pleased that this decision has been set aside and remitted for re-determination. However, it is always best if justice is obtained at the first instance.
Raj Sharma JD LLM