Molotkov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), docket IMM-2846-96

     Date: 19971210

     File: IMM-2846-96

Between:

     MOLOTKOV TATIANA,

     MOLOTKOV SERGEY,

     Applicants,

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:

[1]      This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Division determining that the applicants are not Convention refugees.

[2]      The female applicant immigrated to Israel on October 22, 1990, with her husband and minor son Sergey. Her nationality is Russian through her father and Jewish through her mother, and her religion is Christian.

[3]      The applicants explained before the Refugee Division that they were harassed and assaulted because of their nationality and their religion. They allege that they have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of these grounds.

[4]      The tribunal concluded that it could not believe the applicants' account because of the documentary evidence which indicates that Israel is a democratic country that is capable of protecting those of its citizens who are nationals of the former Soviet Union.

[5]      As in Malchikov¹ and Agranowski,² I am not satisfied that the tribunal took the trouble to examine the evidence as a whole, and more specifically the documents filed by the applicants which corroborated their testimony.

[6]      This case is also very similar to Bougai,³ in which Gibson J. concluded:

While it is a primary function of the CRDD to weigh the evidence before it, I am not satisfied that on the analysis reflected in the reasons in this matter, that weighing was done by this panel in a manner that demonstrates the panel had regard for the totality of the material before it. On this ground alone, I conclude that this application for judicial review must be allowed and that this matter should be referred back for rehearing and redetermination. That is not to say that the conclusion reached by the CRDD in this matter might not have been reasonably open to it. It is to say that the reasons of the CRDD simply do not adequately support the conclusion that it reached.

[7]      For these reasons, the application for judicial review is allowed and the case is referred back to a different panel.

[8]      Certification of a question was not requested by counsel for either party in this instance.

                                         Danièle Tremblay-Lamer

                                         JUDGE

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

December 10, 1997

Certified true translation

C. Delon, LL.L.

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     TRIAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT FILE NO:      IMM-2846-96

STYLE OF CAUSE:      TATIANA MOLOTKOV ET AL

     v.

     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:      MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

DATE OF HEARING:      DECEMBER 9, 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF TREMBLAY-LAMER J.

DATED:      DECEMBER 10, 1997

APPEARANCES:

MICHEL LE BRUN                  FOR THE APPLICANT

DANIEL LATULIPPE                  FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

MICHEL LE BRUN                  FOR THE APPLICANT

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

GEORGE THOMSON                  FOR THE RESPONDENT

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

__________________

¹      Malchikov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 120 F.T.R. 138 (F.C.T.D.).

²      Agranowski v. M.E.I. (July 3, 1996), IMM-2709-95 (F.C.T.D.).

³      Bougai v. Canada (M.C.I.) (June 15, 1995), IMM-4966-94 (F.C.T.D.).