Date: 20051014
Docket: IMM-95-05
Citation: 2005 FC 1403
Ottawa, Ontario, October 14, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE MACTAVISH
BETWEEN:
RONALD LORAINE COLLINS
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Ronald Collins is a citizen of St. Vincent, who claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution in that country at the hands of representatives of the United Labour Party (or "ULP"). The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board accepted that Mr. Collins had been involved in two violent incidents in the lead-up to the 2001 election in St. Vincent. Nevertheless, his claim was rejected, as the Board found that Mr. Collins failed to rebut the presumption that adequate state protection would be available to him in that country.
[2] The Board also found that the fact that Mr. Collins was in Canada for nearly three years before applying for refugee protection was inconsistent with a subjective fear of persecution on his part.
[3] Mr. Collins says that the Board erred in its assessment of his claim, in that it applied the wrong legal test to determine the adequacy of state protection, and further, that the Board misconstrued and ignored evidence before it. He also says that the Board erred in placing improper emphasis on his delay in claiming refugee protection, and in ignoring evidence with respect to his psychological condition, which, he says, explained the delay.
[4] Mr. Collins has not succeeded in persuading me that the Board erred in its assessment of the state protection issue. As the finding in relation to state protection is dispositive of the claim, it is unnecessary to address the issue of delay.
Background
[5] Mr. Collins was an active and visible supporter of the New Democratic Party in St. Vincent. Mr. Collins says that during the lead-up to the March, 2001 elections, he was targeted by representatives of the ULP. During a rally, Mr. Collins was involved in a scuffle with ULP supporters, in the course of which he was thrown to the ground and beaten. On another occasion, Mr. Collins was almost run over by a jeep driven by the same ULP supporter who had previously thrown him to the ground. Mr. Collins says that he reported both incidents to the police, but they took no action.
[6] Mr. Collins also says that he was later threatened by the same individual, and that he received numerous phone calls claiming that he would be dealt with appropriately if the ULP won the election.
[7] Fearing for his life, Mr. Collins left for Canadaon October 28, 2000. The election was won by the ULP at the end of March, 2001. Mr. Collins did not file his application for refugee protection until July of 2003.
The Board's Decision
[8] The Board accepted that the events described by Mr. Collins actually took place. The Board also found that while the documentary evidence indicated that there was some violence in the period leading up to the 2001 election in St. Vincent, the situation was not out of control.
[9] While accepting that Mr. Collins reported the two violent incidents to the police, and that the police did not take any action, the Board nevertheless found that this was not clear and convincing evidence that state protection was not available. Relying upon the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Kadenko v. Canada (MCI), (1996), 143 D.L.R. (4th) 532, the Board found that the refusal by certain police officers to take action does not establish that the state in question is unable or unwilling to protect its nationals. As a consequence, Mr. Collins' refugee claim was rejected.
Analysis
[10] In his written submissions, Mr. Collins asserts that the question of the proper test for state protection is a question of law and as such is reviewable against a standard of correctness. I agree that this is the appropriate standard for a legal question of this nature.
[11] Mr. Collins submits that the Board erred in failing to consider the ability of authorities in St. Vincent to protect him from ULP supporters. In failing to consider the specifics of his individual situation, he says that the Board applied the wrong test for state protection.
[12] A review of the Board's decision discloses that the Board considered the specifics of Mr. Collins' case, in assessing whether state protection might reasonably be expected to be forthcoming, and thus properly applied the test articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at 724. As a consequence, I find that the Board did not commit a reviewable error in this regard.
[13] Insofar as the Board's findings as to the availability of state protection in the circumstances of this case are concerned, Mr. Collins asserts that the standard to be applied in reviewing such a finding is reasonableness, whereas the respondent submits that such a finding should be reviewed against the standard of patent unreasonableness. It is not necessary to resolve this question in this case, however, as I am satisfied that the Board's decision in relation to the issue of state protection was entirely reasonable.
[14] The Board carefully reviewed the evidence relating to conditions within St. Vincent, as they related to the availability of state protection. The Board observed that in Kadenko, the Federal Court of Appeal noted that where, as is the case with St. Vincent, a state has political and judicial institutions capable of protecting the citizens, and where there has not been a complete breakdown of the government apparatus, the refusal of certain police officers to take action is not sufficient to establish that the state is unable or unwilling to protect its nationals.
[15] The Board also noted that the government of St. Vincent has established an oversight committee to monitor police activity, and to deal with complaints about police misconduct. This committee, which reports to the Minister of National Security and the Minister of Legal Affairs actively participates in investigations.
[16] In these circumstances, Mr. Collins has failed to persuade me that the Board's conclusion that adequate state protection would be available to him in St. Vincent was unreasonable.
Conclusion
[17] For these reasons, the application is dismissed.
Certification
[18] The certification process was explained to Mr. Collins in the course of the hearing, and he was provided with an opportunity to consider whether he wished to propose a question for certification.
[19] Mr. Collins did propose a question, which I understand to relate to whether adequate state protection is available in St. Vincent. I am not persuaded that the question proposed by Mr. Collins raises a serious issue of general application, and thus decline to certify it.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. This application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. No serious question of general importance is certified.
"Anne Mactavish"
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-95-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: RONALD LORAINE COLLINS
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: October 12, 2005
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: Mactavish, J
DATED: OCTOBER 14, 2005
APPEARANCES BY:
Ronald Loraine Collins (self-represented) For the Applicant
Greg G. George For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
in person:
Ronald Loraine Collins
494 Cavell Drive Mississauga, Ontario
L5B 2N9 For the Applicant
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent
Email this Content