The importance of the written contract

Those who studied Latin remember the proverb “Verba volant, scripta manent” which could be translated as "spoken words fly away, written words remain".

Here is an interesting ruling from the Small Claims Court. The judge begins his ruling with the following note: “This judgment … serves as a reminder to all homeowners and contractors of the potential pitfalls of entering into construction agreements with nothing but an oral agreement”.

This reminder applies to any commitment other than social obligations. It is essential for the parties to always put in writing the terms of their agreement. The best time to draw up a contract is when all the parties are in amicable terms. When conflict arises, some may show selective memory and others outright bad faith.

This ruling also reminds us how crucial a well drafted contract is.

Indeed, although the judge took a closer look at the parties’ commitment by considering the emails exchanged between them, the judge could not conclude the existence of a contract when in their agreement the essential clauses of the contract are lacking: "where an essential term is missing, and it cannot be said that the parties agreed to it". 

Radhi v Ajram, 2022 CanLII 106829 (ON SCSM), <https://canlii.ca/t/jt04s>

Pleasant reading!

In an asylum claim, the applicant's statements can be sufficient

When it comes to seeking protection, the credibility of the applicant is a fundamental element. In a written procedure, credibility is the key to compel the decision-maker to hold a hearing. If the decision-maker does not believe in the asylum narrative, they must summon the applicant and hear them out.

In this Federal Court decision, which we recommend reading, Judge Grammond reminds us that the line between a ground based on lack of credibility and a ground based on lack of corroborative evidence can be drawn. However, the absence of documentary evidence is not a factor to consider when assessing the credibility of the applicant. Trust in the applicant's statements and trust in the evidence they can submit are two different processes. In other words, the absence of evidence does not equate to the absence of credibility.

Honorable Grammond criticizes the decision-maker for conflating these two processes. The decision-maker made a refusal decision based on the lack of credibility of the applicant but concealed this reason by relying on the fact that the applicant did not provide evidence to support their protection claim.

The credibility of a protection claim does not rely on documentary evidence provided by the applicant. The applicant's narrative alone can be sufficient to grant their protection request. The credibility of the applicant's narrative depends on the preponderance of probability.

"PRRA officers are prohibited from making negative credibility findings unless the applicant is given an oral hearing".

Olusola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1191 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jzzjc>

Pleasant reading!