IMM-123-96
BETWEEN:
JEOFFREY ANDERSON, VIVIAN ANDERSON,
RANDOLPH ANDERSON, and GLENDA ANDERSON
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
JEROME, A.C.J.:
This application for judicial review of the decision of C. Somerville, a Post Claim Determination Officer, dated August 30, 1995, came on for hearing before me at Toronto, Ontario, on June 3, 1997. At the close of argument, I allowed the application for reasons given orally from the Bench and indicated that written reasons would follow.
The applicants came to Canada on March 4, 1993, and have lived in Fort Erie, North York, Willowdale, and Scarborough. Each time they moved, they provided immigration officials with their new address, although that information does not appear to have been properly processed. The applicants claimed to be refugees from Ghana but their claim was dismissed in November, 1993, by the Convention Refugee Determination Division. In the summer of 1995, their situation was reviewed in order to determine whether or not they should qualify as members of the Post-Determination Refugee Claimants in Canada class. By letter dated August 4, 1995, they were informed that they did not qualify.
The Determination Officer did not have the benefit of the applicants' submissions when she came to her decision. As she wrote on page two of her notes,
| No submissions have been put forth for/by the applicants. All Immigration systems/files have been checked for current address. Toronto PCDO Unit was contacted to ensure no submissions had been sent there for the subjects. No alternate addresses exist for the clients. |
|
Mr. Anderson maintained that he had in fact sent submissions and he resubmitted them along with a letter from a representative of the Ghanaian community which described the dangerous conditions which await the applicants' return to Ghana. On August 30, 1995, the Determination Officer wrote to the applicants to inform them that a new evaluation would not proceed and that the new information would not be considered:
| A PDRCC submission kit was mailed to you on 22 April 1995. That kit was returned undeliverable and another kit was forwarded to an alternate address on 17 May 1995. That kit was not returned completed or undeliverable. All Immigration systems/files were checked for an alternate address. The Toronto PCDO Unit was contacted to ensure that submissions were not forwarded to that address. A PDRCC risk assessment was completed and forwarded to you on 04 August 1995. Another PDRCC risk assessment will not be conducted. |
|
Immigration is a hurried and rushed field and it is understandable that the Determination Officer would want to finalize this matter. However, the applicants suffered an injustice when they were not given an opportunity to have their submissions considered.
I am satisfied that the applicants made every effort to abide by the requirements of the Immigration Act and that they should not be penalized because immigration officials sent mail to the wrong address. The Determination Officer committed a reviewable error when she allowed these procedural matters to interfere with her substantive determination of the issues at hand. Accordingly, this matter will be sent to a different Determination Officer who will conduct an entirely new evaluation, allowing all of the parties to present their arguments anew, including any information which became available in the time since August 4, 1995.
Accordingly, on June 3, 1997, I allowed this application for judicial review for the reasons outlined above.
O T T A W A
October 24, 1997 A.C.J.
STYLE OF CAUSE: JEOFFREY ANDERSON et al V.
Mr. Yehuda Levinson FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. David Tyndale FOR THE RESPONDENT
Mr. Yehuda Levinson FOR THE APPLICANT Levinson & Associates
Mr. George Thomson FOR THE RESPONDENT -Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content