Credibility — whether the RPD member believes the claimant's account of what happened — is often the central issue in refugee proceedings. Where the RPD finds a claimant not credible, the claim will generally be rejected. The framework for credibility assessment in RPD proceedings is shaped by Federal Court jurisprudence and the IRB's own legal guidance on evidence weighing.

The starting point is the Maldonado presumption: a claimant who swears or affirms to the truth of their allegations is presumed to be truthful. The RPD must identify positive reasons to doubt the claimant before making an adverse credibility finding.

• IRPA s 170(g) — the RPD may receive and base its decision on evidence it considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances, even if it is not otherwise admissible in a court of law
• RPD Rules r 10 — documents submitted as evidence
• Maldonado v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) [1980] 2 FC 302 (FCA) — presumption of truthfulness for sworn testimony
• Valtchev v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2001 FCT 776 — RPD must base implausibility findings on the evidence, not conjecture

The Maldonado presumption

A claimant who swears or affirms to the truth of their allegations is presumed to be telling the truth. The RPD cannot make a negative credibility finding without identifying specific and articulable reasons grounded in the evidence. The presumption does not require the RPD to accept implausible or internally contradictory accounts — but the member must explain why the account is not credible by pointing to specific evidence.

Types of adverse credibility findings

Inconsistencies: Where the claimant's testimony at the hearing contradicts their written Basis of Claim form or prior statements to IRCC or CBSA, the RPD may make an adverse credibility finding. The inconsistency must be material to the claim. The RPD must give the claimant an opportunity to explain the inconsistency before relying on it as a basis for rejecting the claim.

Omissions: Where important details were omitted from the BOC and only raised at the hearing, the RPD may treat the omission as undermining credibility — particularly where the details are central to the claim and there is no good explanation for their absence. Minor or peripheral omissions should not be treated as significant credibility issues.

Implausibility: The RPD may find an account implausible based on logic, common sense, or country condition evidence. However, implausibility findings must be grounded in the evidence, not in speculation, Western assumptions, or cultural misunderstanding. The Federal Court has repeatedly cautioned against RPD members using Canadian cultural norms to evaluate the plausibility of conduct in other countries.

Demeanour: The RPD may take into account the claimant's demeanour at the hearing (nervousness, evasiveness, lack of spontaneity). However, demeanour findings are generally treated with caution in Federal Court review, particularly given the trauma, cultural differences, and language barriers that may affect a claimant's presentation. Chairperson Guideline 8 (Procedures with Respect to Vulnerable Persons) is relevant here.

Documentary evidence: The RPD may find documents not credible where they are inconsistent with other evidence, obtained from sources known for forgery, or where the claimant cannot explain how they obtained them. However, the RPD must assess documents holistically and not reject them without reason.

Opportunity to explain

Before the RPD makes a negative credibility finding based on an inconsistency, omission, or other concern, it must give the claimant a reasonable opportunity to explain. Failure to do so is a procedural fairness error reviewable by the Federal Court. Counsel may make submissions on credibility issues at the close of the hearing.

Credibility and country conditions

Where the claimant's account is consistent with country condition documents — including the RPD's National Documentation Package (NDP) for the claimant's country — this may support credibility. Conversely, where the account is inconsistent with established country conditions, the RPD may use country evidence to reject the account.

Review on appeal

The RAD reviews RPD credibility findings on a correctness standard for questions of law and mixed fact and law. For pure findings of fact, the RAD applies a more deferential standard — it will not substitute its own assessment for the RPD's unless there is a palpable and overriding error. However, the RAD has the ability to hold its own hearings and admit new evidence in appropriate cases.

Credibility findings are the most common source of RPD rejections and the most common ground of appeal to the RAD and judicial review applications to the Federal Court. Federal Court decisions on credibility review are voluminous — practitioners should review current case law on the particular credibility issue involved in any given claim.

Persons who believe an RPD credibility finding was wrong should seek legal advice about the prospects of an appeal to the RAD. The RAD appeal must be filed within 15 days of receiving the RPD decision in most cases. Refer to the IRB Appellant's Guide for current filing requirements and deadlines.