raised significant issues respecting the proper interpretation of
the review provisions in the IAP framework, as well as respecting
the court’s jurisdiction to fashion remedies when the IAP adjudication produces [at para. 52] “a patent miscarriage of justice”.
Canada’s disclosure obligations
 The administrative judge rejected M.F.’s contention that
Canada had breached its IAP disclosure obligations by failing to
give the adjudicator the documents disclosing Father B.’s departure from Spanish after the Spanish Boys IRS closed.
 Canada had referred to the documents in the IRS school
narrative and POI report. Those reports had accurately reported what the documents said about when Spanish Boys IRS had
closed, and about the dates when Father B. was at the school,
although they had not reported that Father B. had left Spanish
the day after the IRS closed. The documents were identified and
available. M.F. could have obtained copies and ensured that the
adjudicator had them, but he did not do so. The adjudicator
could have examined the documents herself. The erroneous
redaction of Father B.’s name in the diary did not breach Canada’s IAP disclosure obligation because the adjudicator had not
read the diary and M.F. had not requested it.
Review and re-review
 The administrative judge found, at paras. 64-65, that the
re-review adjudicator erred in his interpretation of the review
provisions of the IAP. The re-review adjudicator had restricted
his review to whether the review adjudicator had properly
applied the IAP model to the facts as found by the adjudicator.
In the administrative judge’s opinion, the re-review adjudicator
was supposed to review the decisions of both the adjudicator and
the re-review adjudicator.
 The administrative judge rejected the re-review adjudicator’s view that the IAP did not permit him to review the decisions of the adjudicator or the review adjudicator for palpable
and overriding errors as “a dangerous over-simplification”:
para. 66. The administrative judge found that with respect to
the present claim, review of the first two adjudicators’ decisions
for a correct application of the IAP framework was inseparable
from review of the facts found by the adjudicator.
 The administrative judge ruled that the re-review adjudicator erred by concluding that the adjudicator had not used extracurricular knowledge as an independent basis for her findings of
facts. The administration judge stated, at para. 70, “[o]nce the
adjudicator’s speculation is excised from the case, there is no basis