M.F. once again raised the argument that the abuse could
have occurred in relation to the use of the chapel at the boys’
school by the residents of the girls’ school after the boys’ school
had closed. He argued that the adjudicator had failed to take judicial notice of the fact that the residents of the girls school would
be expected to attend mass performed by a priest. The re-review
adjudicator dismissed this argument, pointing out that M.F. had
testified that he was not sure whether he had seen any residential
school students at the masses when he served as altar boy.
 M.F. submitted for the first time on re-review that the
adjudicator had erroneously relied on extra-curial knowledge of
the age at which a Catholic boy may become an altar boy.
 The re-review adjudicator agreed with M.F. that the age
at which a boy may serve as an altar boy in the Catholic Church
is not obvious, that it was “ill-advised” for the adjudicator to rely
on her personal knowledge, and that the adjudicator may have
been wrong as to the age. However, the IAP only prevents adjudicators from relying on extra-curial knowledge “as an independent basis for their conclusions of fact”. The re-review
adjudicator concluded that the adjudicator’s finding that M.F.
had not established on a balance of probabilities that the abuse
occurred prior to the closure of the IRS was well supported by
other facts and evidence, and that it was not independently
based on her use of extra-curial knowledge. The re-review
adjudicator concluded, accordingly, that the adjudicator had not
failed to apply or misapplied the IAP model.
M.F.’s Request for Directions
 M.F. brought a RFD asking for a declaration of his entitlement to compensation at a specified level, and for declarations
as to the standard of review which should be applied by review
and re-review adjudicators. Independent counsel, an IRSSA
entity, supported M.F.’s position.
Newly discovered evidence
 The IAP imposes an obligation on the Government of
Canada to search for and collect relevant documents and provide
a report setting out the dates a claimant attended an IRS. Canada must provide a “person of interest” or “POI” report detailing
information about alleged perpetrators of abuse, including their
jobs at the IRS and the dates they worked or attended there.
Canada must also gather documents about the IRS that the
claimant attended and provide the claimant with an “IRS school
narrative” summarizing those documents. The claimant is entitled to request copies of documents located by Canada.