Date: 20260323

Docket: IMM-6327-25

Citation: 2026 FC 387

Toronto, Ontario, March 23, 2026

PRESENT: Mr. Justice Diner

ORDER AND REASONS

[1] On November 3^rd, 2025, I dismissed, at the leave stage, the Applicants’ application for leave and judicial review [Application] of a decision of the Refugee Appeal Division [RAD]. The RAD confirmed the Refugee Protection Division’s [RPD] finding that the Applicants had not credibly established their allegations of persecution [Decision].

[2] The Applicants now bring a motion to reconsider that decision pursuant to Rule 397 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [Rules]. First, the Applicants argue that the Court failed to properly consider the new evidence before the RAD. Second, they argue that the Court overlooked material issues relating to the credibility findings. I will dismiss their motion for the reasons that follow.

I. Background

[3] The Applicants are citizens of Pakistan who claimed refugee protection based on alleged threats from a former neighbour and members of Tehreek-e-Jafari. Both the RPD and the RAD concluded that key documents were fabricated or unreliable, and that the Applicants had not credibly established the alleged threats. On February 28, 2025, the RAD confirmed the RPD decision, finding that credibility is the determinative issue. As part of their appeal to the RAD, the Applicants submitted 11 documents, which the RAD found to be admissible. They are as follows:

• a)an email from the Applicants’ law firm, Meer Law, dated December 4, 2024;

• b)registration of a case, undated;

• c)a Police complaint receipt, dated November 21, 2024;

• d)an Affidavit from BS, the Principal Applicant’s mother-in-law;

• e)passport of BS;

• f)a letter from Meer Law dated December 3, 2024;

• g)a Punjab Bar Council license;

• h)an email from Meer Law dated December 5, 2024;

• i)a screenshot of the Punjab police complaint management system;

• j)online complaint information, dated November 21, 2024; and

• k)police complaint receipt, dated November 20, 2024.

[4] The RAD also sent notice to the Applicants of certain credibility concerns that were not raised by the RPD. The Applicants’ response included an email from the Applicants’ lawyer in Pakistan responding to the concerns raised by the RAD. The RAD admitted this email correspondence as new evidence.

[5] Since the RAD found that the new evidence it accepted would not justify allowing or rejecting the refugee protection claim, it decided not to hold an oral hearing. The RAD confirmed the RPD’s finding that the Applicants failed to credibly establish that they were subject to the alleged threats and harassment.

[6] As noted above, I dismissed the Application at the leave stage, for which the Applicants now request reconsideration. The Applicants’ arguments focus primarily on their contention that the RAD’s Decision was unreasonable and that the RAD did not comprehend or misunderstood the documentary norms of Pakistan and mistakenly determined that the produced documents had issues of credibility. The Applicants also argue that this Court failed to properly consider whether the RAD was required to hold an oral hearing.

II. Analysis

[7] Before considering the submissions made in this Rule 397 request for reconsideration, it is important to review the context of that provision, beginning with its text. Rule 397 offers an exception to the finality of judgments:

[8] As for recent commentary on this rule, Justice Fothergill wrote in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Asphall, 2024 FC 911 [Asphall] at page 5:

The power conferred upon the Court by Rule 397 to reconsider orders and judgments to address mistakes, omissions, or matters that have been overlooked is ‘much narrower than it sounds’ – ‘the Court cannot rethink the matter and reverse itself” (Canada v MacDonald, 2021 FCA 6, at para 17).

[9] On the same page of Asphall, Justice Fothergill went on to cite Justice Gascon who in Alsaloussi v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FC 533 provided further commentary about Rule 397 and its limitations intentionally created by design of the Rules:

3. Rule 397 does not allow the Court to entertain a motion which is in the nature of an appeal from its own decision. The proper way to challenge the merits of a decision is to file an appeal, when such appeal is available. Similarly, an argument that goes to the substantive validity of a decision rather than correcting a slip or oversight by the Court cannot be asserted in a motion for reconsideration under Rule 397 (Yeager v Day, 2013 FCA 258 at para 14).

4. The purpose of Rule 397(1) is not to reverse a decision that has already been issued (Taker v Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FCA 83 at para 4), but to enable the Court to address inadvertent mistakes or omissions in a judgment, and to ensure that the judgment reflects the intention of the issuing judge and deals with all of the issues that should have been adjudicated (Pharmascience Inc v Canada (Minister of Health), 2003 FCA 333 at paras 12-15).

5. More specifically, the power to reconsider an order on the basis that it “does not accord with any reasons given for it”, contemplated by Rule 397(1)(a), is limited. In such a case, the Court can only correct an order “if it does not reflect the manifest intention of the Court as expressed in the reasons provided by that Court” (McCrea v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 285 [McCrea] at para 10).

[10] The discordance addressed in Rule 397(1)(a) refers to situations where the reasons favor one party and yet, through a clear and obvious error or omission, the order – or judgment – does not do so (Davey v Canada, 2016 FC 492 at para 17).

[11] Under a motion for reconsideration, the appropriate question is whether there was some matter the Court overlooked in reaching its decision, and, if so, determine whether the overlooked matter changes its decision (Alsamarraie v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 755 [Alsamarraie] at para 6). As Justice Phelan emphasized, the jurisprudence clearly establishes that Rule 397 is not intended to be used as a method of appeal.

A. Did the Court overlook a material issue?

[12] The Applicants argue that the RAD failed to properly consider the new documentary evidence. I disagree. The RAD in its Decision, expressly addressed the treatment of evidence, including:

• a)the law firm letters;

• b)the police complaint documents;

• c)the writ of petition;

• d)the supporting affidavits; and

• e)the new police documents relating to the alleged November 2024 incident.

[13] The RAD identified multiple inconsistencies and irregularities across these materials, including:

• a)significant linguistic and formal defects in the law firm letters, which it found were fabricated;

• b)discrepancies between the police complaint, the writ of petition, and the Applicants’ narrative;

• c)vague and limited affidavit evidence; and

• d)inconsistencies in the new police documentation, including conflicting allegations and identification numbers.

[14] The Applicants’ motion materials do not identify any issue that the Court overlooked. Rather, they reiterate their disagreement with the RAD’s findings. I confirm that the Court did not overlook any issues.

[15] I reiterate that a motion for reconsideration is not for this Court to hear the appeal of its own decision (Alsamarraie at para 6). The power to reconsider pursuant to Rule 397 is narrow (Raina v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 318 at para 6) and is an exception to depart from the principle of res judicata (Jhajj v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (T.D.), 1995 CanLII 3583 (FC), 1995 2 FC 369 at pages 387-386.

[16] Further, the RAD noted that the Applicants did not request an oral hearing, and nevertheless briefly explained its reasons for not holding one. The new evidence, if found credible, would not justify allowing the Applicants’ claim pursuant to subsection 110(6)(c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Even if the new evidence was determined to intrinsically credible, it would not warrant a hearing before the RAD; the evidence would still be required to justify a reassessment of the overall credibility of the Applicants (Singh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FCA 96 at para 44).

[17] While the Applicants disagree with the result of the case, and I understand and acknowledge that it is not the outcome that the family had hoped for, it does not reflect any error or omission that requires correction as contemplated by Rule 397(1).

[18] Finally, I note that the Applicants have submitted new evidence with this reconsideration motion, including that one of the Applicants has experienced extreme grief and stress over this matter, resulting in heightened health issues. While sympathetic to these new issues, those items are not material for the reconsideration request.

[19] I find that the RAD’s decision remains reasonable, and that as a result there was not a fairly arguable case (Bains v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1990), 47 Admin. L.R. 317, 109 N.R. 239 (F.C.A.); Kreishan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FCA 223, at para 18). In short, this Court did not overlook or accidently omit a material issue, and there thus are no grounds to reconsider my earlier Order.

III. Costs

[20] Neither party made submissions on costs, and none are awarded.

IV. Conclusion

[21] The Applicants’ motion is dismissed. No costs are awarded to either party.

ORDER in IMM-6327-25

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1. The Applicants’ motion for reconsideration is dismissed.

2. No costs are awarded.

"Alan S. Diner"

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

MATTER CONSIDERED IN WRITING PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES WITHOUT THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: