Date: 20090813
Docket: IMM-3914-08
Citation:
2009 FC 828
Ottawa, Ontario, August 13, 2009
PRESENT:
The Honourable Max M. Teitelbaum
BETWEEN:
Hector Mauricio RAMIREZ RUEDA
Claudia Agenlica ROSALES MAR
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review under subsection 72(1) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA) and section 18.1 of the
Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, of the decision by the
Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (panel). The
panel determined that the applicants, who are Mexican citizens, were not
“refugees” under section 96 of the IRPA or “persons in need of protection”
under section 97 of the IRPA since an internal flight alternative (IFA) was
available in Mexico.
[2]
The
principal applicant, Hector Mauricio Ramirez Rueda, age 33, and his wife, Claudia Angelica
Rosales Mar, age 30, lived in Veracruz, Mexico. They arrived in Canada on February 3, 2007, and claimed
refugee status the same day under sections 96 and 97(1)(b) of the IRPA. The
female applicant is basing her narrative on her husband’s.
[3]
On
November 21, 2006, while driving his taxi, the principal applicant witnessed
the murder of a motorcyclist. When the applicant got close to the crime scene,
the killers saw him in his taxi, number 0326. The applicant drove away from the
area quickly.
[4]
He
then called for help on his cell phone. The operator told him to go to the Boca
del Rio police because
a patrol was usually there, but there was none. The operator then advised him
to remain in hiding, and the applicant took refuge in an alley.
[5]
The
applicant called his father to come and get him because he was too nervous to
drive. When his father arrived, the applicant called the police and was told
that they were looking for the killers. The next day, November 22, the
applicant found out that the killers had gotten away from the police.
[6]
The
applicant hid out at his home for a number of days after the incident and did
not return to work until November 27, 2006. On that day, a customer flagged him
down and told him that he wanted to go to this address: Tecoltutla 20 Geovillas
del Puerto. This address was, in fact, the applicant’s own address.
[7]
The
customer then pressed a knife against the applicant’s ribs and threatened to
rape his mother and his wife and to kill his entire family if he did not keep
quiet. The applicant stated that, following this threat, he noticed the same
man and his accomplices four times at various locations, including in front of
his home.
[8]
The
next day, November 28, the applicant filed a complaint with the Public
Prosecutor’s office where he was told that protection would be possible if he
paid 30.000 pesos for each family member who had been threatened. The same day,
the applicant received a call on his cell phone from an individual claiming to know
that he had filed a complaint.
[9]
On
November
30, 2006,
two police officers went to the applicant’s home to question him about his
complaint. Seeing him in a state of shock, the police officers referred him to
a psychologist.
[10]
On
December 5, 2006, police officers told the applicant that they had searched the
house belonging to a suspect nicknamed Dracula but found no evidence regarding
the motorcyclist’s murder.
[11]
The
applicant said that his father and his wife also received threats.
[12]
Last,
the applicant stated that, since his arrival in Canada, he learned
from his father that the Zetas and Gente Nueva gangs were responsible for the
events related to these problems.
[13]
Although
the panel concluded that the applicants’ story was plausible, that finding did
not automatically result in refugee status being granted because the panel believed
there was an internal flight alternative in this case.
[14]
The
panel noted that, according to the documentary evidence, Mexico has over 100
million inhabitants living in 31 states in addition to the Federal District,
which alone has a population of over 8 million. There are a number of other
large cities with a population of more than a million where the applicant and
his wife could settle.
[15]
When
asked about the possibility of settling elsewhere, such as in Mexico City, the principal
applicant replied that he could work anywhere in Mexico but that he
would not be safe because he could be readily found through his voter registration
card. When the panel asked him why, in his opinion, these people would spend
time and money looking for him everywhere, he replied that these gangs also
operate in Mexico
City.
[16]
The
panel did not agree and found that the applicants did not discharge their onus
of demonstrating that the people who threatened them would search for them
throughout Mexico to prevent
the principal applicant from testifying in the case of the motorcyclist’s murder.
[17]
The
panel noted that the applicant’s evidence was that the Mexican police had taken
charge of the murder case from the outset. It is possible that those
responsible for the motorcyclist’s murder tried to prevent the principal
applicant from filing a complaint against them by threatening him.
[18]
The
panel found it odd that the principal applicant did not attempt to call the
police to have them arrest the person who threatened him with a knife on
November 27, 2006, when that person appeared in front of his home. Also, the principal
applicant stated that he hid out at his home even though the killers knew where
he lived.
[19]
Under
these conditions and given that during the two months he spent in Mexico after the
motorcyclist’s murder, the applicant was unable to provide the police with any
evidence about the murderers’ identities, the panel did not see why they would
pursue the principal applicant and his wife throughout Mexico.
[20]
Consequently,
in the panel’s opinion, the applicants failed to demonstrate that there was a serious
risk that they would be found and subjected to cruel and unusual treatment.
[21]
It
should be noted that applying section 97(1) of the IRPA to this case did not allow
the panel to rule out an IFA.
[22]
The
applicants submit that the panel erred by finding that the applicants did not
discharge their onus of demonstrating that the people who threatened them were
capable of finding them anywhere in Mexico.
The transcript of the
newscast
[23]
The
applicants submit that they adduced sufficient evidence that the Zetas gang is
very powerful and is everywhere in Mexico. The applicants filed
the transcript of an excerpt of an audio tape of a Mexican newscast. The
applicants claim that this transcript shows the power of the organization that was
victimizing them. It is a transcript of an interrogation between an
“interrogator”, Jesus Arano Servin, and Victor Manuel Perez Rocha. It is clear
from the interrogation that the Gulf Cartel eliminates members who are no longer
suited to the organization’s interests or who do not keep their promises.
[24]
The
applicants submit that the panel did not analyze the transcript. They contend
that this evidence demonstrates the persecutors’ reach. The applicants describe
the Zetas as a well‑established criminal organization that exists
throughout the country and is constantly asserting their interests. The
applicants claim that these bandits do not need to put resources in place to
find and kill someone in Mexico City or any other city.
Criteria for determining
an internal flight alternative
[25]
The
applicants state that the two-pronged test for determining whether an IFA exists
was established in Rasaratnam v. Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706 (C.A.):
(i) the Board must be satisfied
on a balance of probabilities that there is no serious possibility of the
claimant being persecuted in the part of the country to which it finds an IFA
exists.
(ii) conditions in that part of
the country considered to be an IFA must be such that it would not be
unreasonable in all the circumstances, including those particular to the
claimant, for him to seek refuge there.
[26]
The
applicants maintain that the panel did not listen to the evidence showing that the
applicants would be persecuted elsewhere in Mexico.
Voter
registration card
[27]
The
applicants submitted a document entitled “Selected Issues of Internal Flight
Alternatives” (July 2003 to July 2005) from the National Documentation Package
on Mexico at point 4.2 “Traceability of people in Mexico”. In that
document, Jim Hodgson contends that the extensive use of the voter
registration card makes it easy for the police to find a person using the IFE (Federal
Electoral Institute) database. In addition, an article in the Latin America
Press
dated June 18, 2003, states that
4,000 underpaid IFE public servants have access to the electors
lists in 32 states. The lists are contained in a series of compact discs
that are easy to copy. It appears that all political parties, whose corruption
is legendary, have access to these discs.
[28]
The
applicants note that the evidence provided to the panel demonstrates that it is
possible for someone to obtain information on individuals through the voter
registration card.
Serious risk of
persecution
[29]
Last,
the applicants argue that there is a serious risk they would be persecuted
elsewhere in Mexico, specifically in Mexico City, which the panel
suggested as an IFA at the hearing. It is not reasonable to ask the applicants to
take refuge in Mexico City, given their persecutor’s aggression and the
methods available to find them.
[30]
The
applicants submit that the panel did not explain why it disregarded the
evidence in the record that contradicts an IFA and that this error warrants the
intervention of this Honourable Court.
[31]
The
applicants respectfully request that this Honourable Court allow the
application for judicial review and remit the matter to a differently
constituted panel for a de novo hearing or make any other order that the
Court deems just.
[32]
The
respondent submits that the panel’s finding is reasonable and completely
consistent with the teachings of this Court.
[33]
The
respondent argues that the test for determining an internal flight alternative
is well‑established. This test was mentioned by the applicants.
Burden
[34]
The
respondent submits that refugee claimants have the burden of proof and cites
Mr. Justice Shore at paragraph 18 of Valenzuela Del Real v. Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration), 2008 FC 140:
18 Ms. Del Real did not meet her burden of
establishing on a balance of probabilities that there was a serious possibility
of persecution everywhere in Mexico and that it would be unreasonable for her to seek refuge in
another part of her country. (Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.); [1994]
F.C.J. No. 1172 (QL).)
[35]
The
respondent submits that claimants must establish that it would be unreasonable
for them to seek refuge in another part of the country and must adduce actual
and concrete evidence of the conditions preventing them from settling elsewhere
in their country, Valenzuela Del Real at paragraph 30:
30 The bar must be placed very high when
determining what would be unreasonable: “it requires nothing less than the
existence of conditions which would jeopardize the life and safety of a
claimant in travelling or temporarily relocating to a safe area. In addition,
it requires actual and concrete evidence of such conditions” (Ranganathan, supra, paragraph 15).
[36]
The
respondent contends that the applicants did not adduce actual and concrete
evidence of conditions that prevent them from relocating elsewhere in Mexico. In fact,
the respondent submits that, at the hearing, the panel suggested various places
where the applicants could relocate, including the Federal District, but the
applicants did not provide satisfactory evidence that it was impossible to
relocate there.
Internal flight
alternative
[37]
The
respondent notes that, other than indicating that they are disappointed with
the panel’s analysis, the applicants do not specify what the panel omitted or
how the decision could have been different. Nevertheless, the mere fact that
the applicants disagree with the decision certainly does not warrant the
intervention of this Court. The respondent cites Mr. Justice Shore at paragraph
28 of Nijjar v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 829:
28 The Court may intervene only if Mr. Nijjar demonstrates that
the Board erred in law or in fact in its decision. The Court cannot intervene
simply because it (or the applicant) disagrees with the Board’s decision. In Nxumalo
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2003 FCTD
413, [2003] F.C.J. No. 573 (QL), at paragraph 7, Mr. Justice Simon Noël said:
With
regard to the applicant’s credibility, I believe that the applicant is trying
to get the Court to substitute its opinion to the one of the Board. As Justice
Blanchard held in Hosseini v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 509
(F.C.T.D.):
The
assessment of the value of the applicant’s explanations, like that of the other
facts, is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Refugee Division, which also
has recognized expertise in weighing the merits of testimony on the situation
in various countries. This being so, I agree with the respondent’s arguments,
namely that the applicant could not simply repeat on judicial review an
explanation already given to the specialized tribunal and dismissed by it. In Muthuthevar
v. M.C.I., [1996] F.C.J. No. 207, on line: QL, Cullen J. was entirely of
this opinion at para. 7 of his reasons:
While
the applicant seeks to “explain away” testimony that the Board found
implausible, it must not be forgotten that these same explanations were before
the Board and were not accepted as credible. The applicant has not directed to
this Court evidence that was ignored or misconstrued, and in the absence of
such a finding, the Board’s conclusions on credibility must stand.
[38]
The
respondent notes that the applicants’ disappointment and disagreement with the
decision certainly does not warrant the intervention of this Court.
Disinterested agents of
persecution
[39]
The
respondent notes that the agents of persecution threatened the applicants because
of the complaint filed by the principal applicant. However, the principal applicant
was unable to identify the suspect during photo identification sessions and did
not confirm his complaint. The suspects who had been arrested were released.
[40]
The
respondent notes that the Mexican authorities took charge of the matter at the
outset, as appears from the documents that the applicant submitted in evidence.
The respondent also notes that the applicants stayed in Mexico for two
months after the murder and were not able to provide any evidence to the police
to further the investigation.
[41]
It
was, therefore, reasonable for the panel to conclude that the agents of persecution
no longer had a reason to pursue the applicant throughout Mexico because they
had been released.
Newspaper articles
[42]
The
respondent submits that the newspaper articles that the applicants tendered in
evidence do not show how they would be personally at risk. The overall
situation of drug traffickers in Mexico, which the applicants raised,
has no connection with the applicants’ personal situation and does not
constitute actual and concrete evidence of conditions preventing them from
relocating.
[43]
It
is settled law that general evidence cannot by itself establish that a claim is
well-founded. The respondent cites Morales Alba v. Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration), 2007 FC 1116 at paragraphs 3 and 4:
3 It is not sufficient for claimants
to provide documentary evidence about problematic situations in their country in
order to be recognized as “Convention refugees” or “persons in need of
protection”. The claimants must also demonstrate a connection between that
evidence and their personal situation, which they failed to do (Rahaman
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
2002 FCA 89, [2002] F.C.J. No. 302 (F.C.A.) (QL)). [Emphasis in the decision.]
4 Documentary evidence about the
current general situation in a refugee claimant’s country cannot by itself establish
that the refugee claim is well-founded (Alexibich v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 53, [2002] F.C.J. No. 57 (QL); Ithibu
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 288, [2001] F.C.J. No.
499 (QL).)
Transcript of
newscast
[44]
As
for the applicants’ argument that the panel did not analyze the evidence,
referring to the transcript of an excerpt of a video taken from YouTube, the
respondent submits that this argument is not founded and should be disregarded.
[45]
Indeed,
the respondent notes on the one hand that, as the panel stated, the only useful
information in the video excerpt is that a motorcyclist was killed and that the
Zetas gang exists. It is clear that the panel considered and assessed the
evidence. Thus, it is erroneous to contend that the panel ignored the evidence.
[46]
The
respondent notes on the one hand that it is settled law that the panel is
presumed to have considered all the evidence and that there is absolutely no
requirement that it refer to all the documents submitted. The respondent cites Xocopa
Martell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC
1029 para. 22:
[22] The applicants also argued that the Panel
ignored documents filed in evidence. It should be pointed out that there is a
presumption to the effect that the Panel is deemed to have considered all of
the evidence before making its decision, despite the fact that not all of the
various pieces of evidence are specifically mentioned in its reasons. It is up
to the Panel to weigh the evidence before it and to make the appropriate
findings. In so doing, the Panel may choose from among the evidence as it sees
fit, and this choice is an integral part of its role and expertise: Mahendran
v. Canada (MCI), (1991) 134 N.R. 316, 14 Imm. L.R. (2d) 30 (F.C.A.); Tawfik
v. Canada (MCI) (1993), 137 F.T.R. 43, 26 Imm. L.R. (2d) 148; Akinlolu
v. Canada (MCI) (1997), 70 A.C.W.S. (3d) 136, [1997] F.C.J. No. 296 (QL); Florea
v. Canada (MEI), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598 (C.A.) (QL).
[47]
In
any event, it is important to note that, in this case, the panel’s decision
refers specifically to certain evidence filed by the applicants.
Voter
registration card
[48]
As
for the applicants’ argument that the agents of persecution could find them
through their voter registration cards, the respondent contends that the
opposite is stated in an article from the Immigration and Refugee Board of
Canada entitled “Responses to Information Requests (RIR)” dated June 2, 2006:
Regarding whether the police, government authorities or
individuals can use the Voter Registration Card to access information in the
official computer system in order to locate an individual within Mexico, the
IEEM official noted that, according to Article 135 of the Federal Code of
Institutions and Electoral Procedures, documents, data and information provided
by Mexican citizens to the Federal Registry of Voters is strictly confidential
and cannot be divulged to anyone except authorized users within the
organization (Mexico 12 May 2006). No reports of police, government authorities
or individuals using the Voter Registration Card to access the information in
the official computer system in order to locate an individual within Mexico could be found among the
sources consulted by the Research Directorate.
[49]
On
the other hand, the respondent notes that this document is more recent that the
one referred to in the applicants’ supplementary memorandum.
[50]
Moreover,
the document filed by the applicants also states that no one has been located
through these registries:
Magalí Amieva, from the IFE’s international affairs division,
stated that the information gathered is used only to establish electors lists
for the federal elections; it is strictly confidential, protected by law and
cannot be shared with any other administration, whether it is public, private
or foreign . . .
[51]
Consequently,
the respondent submits that it was reasonable for the panel to find that the
applicants had not demonstrated that they would be located anywhere in Mexico. The
applicants did not discharge their onus.
[52]
On
the other hand, the respondent contends that the principal applicant testified
that the only reason why he could not work elsewhere was his fear of being
found. The transcript reads as follows:
[translation]
Q. Sir, is there, is there, could you
find work somewhere other than Veracruz, for example, could you drive
a taxi somewhere else?
A. I don’t know the city; it would be the
same as looking for work here in Montréal.
Q. Could you find other work in Mexico
somewhere other than Veracruz?
A. I don’t think so because, because of
the social insurance number.
[53]
The
respondent says, however, that the documentary evidence shows the opposite.
Thus, it was reasonable for the panel to conclude that the applicants could clearly
find work elsewhere in Mexico and relocate. The applicants did not
adduce actual and concrete evidence demonstrating the contrary.
Lack of relatives
elsewhere in Mexico
[54]
The
respondent submits that it appears from their Personal Information Form (PIF)
that they do not want to move elsewhere in Mexico because they
do not know anyone. The respondent notes that the jurisprudence of this Court
has clearly established that the lack of relatives does not affect the
availability of an internal flight alternative. The respondent cites Mr.
Justice Kelen at paragraph 8 of the decision in Camargo v. Canada (Citizenship
and Immigration), 2006 FC 472:
8 The IFA legal test is two-fold: first,
the applicant must show that there is a serious possibility of being persecuted
in the identified IFA. Second, he must show that the conditions in the
potential IFA are such that it would be unreasonable for him to seek refuge
there (Thirunavukkarasu v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),
[1994] 1 F.C. 589 (C.A.)). For an IFA to be unreasonable, conditions must exist
that would jeopardize the life and safety of a claimant if travelling or
temporarily relocating to that area. The absence of relatives in the IFA is not
relevant unless it affects the claimant’s safety. (Ranganathan v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 164 (C.A.)).
[55]
The
respondent submits that, having considered all these factors, the panel
concluded that the applicants had not proven that they would be traced
throughout Mexico. Absent
evidence that the applicants could not relocate, it was reasonable for the
panel to find that there was an internal flight alternative. The respondent
cites Mr. Justice Tannenbaum at paragraphs 34 and 35 of Hernandez v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1126:
34 In countering these
submissions, the applicant was able to do little more than offer vague
allegations of the risks of being located arising from the state’s inability to
protect her; however, she did not avail herself of this protection before
leaving her country to seek protection in Canada. In addition, she did not file
any genuine, concrete evidence of existing conditions preventing her from
relocating in her country. Under these circumstances, the Board could reasonably
find that there was an internal flight alternative in Mexico.
35 Further, expecting the
applicant to move to another region of the country to live elsewhere with a
family member cannot be considered undue hardship or even be qualified as
unreasonable.
[56]
In
light of the foregoing, the respondent maintains that there is nothing in the
applicants’ evidence that could allow this Honourable Court to intervene in the
panel’s decision and respectfully asks this Court to dismiss the applicants’
application for judicial review.
[57]
The
issue is whether the panel’s finding that the applicant has an internal flight
alternative in Mexico is unreasonable based on the evidence.
[58]
As
the Honourable Justice Pinard stated at paragraph 3 of Varela Soto v. Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration, 2009 FC 92, the appropriate standard of
review is reasonableness:
The standard of review that applies to an RPD decision concerning
the existence of an IFA is reasonableness (Franklyn v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 2005 FC 1249, at
paragraph 18). Thus, the role of this Court in this case is to inquire into
“the qualities that make a decision reasonable” (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R.
190, at paragraph 47).
[59]
The
determinative reason for the panel’s decision was that the applicants had an
internal flight alternative in another city in Mexico.
[60]
As
the applicants stated, where the panel raises the IFA issue, they must prove on
a balance of probabilities that there is a serious possibility they will be
persecuted in the part of the country to which the panel finds an IFA and that
the conditions in the part of the country where the IFA exists are such that it
would not be unreasonable for the applicants to seek refuge there, under all
the circumstances, including those that are particular to the applicants (Rasaratnam
v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 1 F.C. 706
(C.A.).
[61]
The
applicants dispute the panel’s assessment of the evidence about the voter
registration card and the transcript of the televised newscast, claiming that
the agents of persecution can find them anywhere in Mexico.
[62]
As
for the applicants’ argument that the panel failed to analyze the evidence,
referring to the transcript of a video excerpt taken from YouTube, paragraph 22
of the decision in Xocopa Martell v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration),
2008 FC 1029 states that the panel is deemed to have considered all the
evidence and that there is absolutely no requirement to refer to all the
documents that were submitted. Furthermore, the source is suspect, which
affects the weight assigned to this evidence.
[63]
Regarding
the applicants’ argument that the agents of persecution could find them through
their voter registration cards, there is an article, more recent than the
applicants’, that states the opposite. This article is from the Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada and is entitled Responses to Information Requests
(RIR) dated June 2, 2006:
Regarding whether the police, government authorities or
individuals can use the Voter Registration Card to access information in the
official computer system in order to locate an individual within Mexico, the
IEEM official noted that, according to Article 135 of the Federal Code of
Institutions and Electoral Procedures, documents, data and information provided
by Mexican citizens to the Federal Registry of Voters is strictly confidential
and cannot be divulged to anyone except authorized users within the
organization (Mexico 12 May 2006). No reports of police, government authorities
or individuals using the Voter Registration Card to access the information in
the official computer system in order to locate an individual within Mexico could be found among the
sources consulted by the Research Directorate.
[64]
It
was therefore reasonable for the panel to find that this factor could
not affect the first prong of the IFA determination.
[65]
Last,
even though the applicants are disappointed with the panel’s analysis, that
does not justify the intervention of this Court, as Mr. Justice Shore stated at
paragraph 28 of Nijjar v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 829:
28 The Court may intervene only if Mr. Nijjar demonstrates that
the Board erred in law or in fact in its decision. The Court cannot intervene
simply because it (or the applicant) disagrees with the Board’s decision. In Nxumalo
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2003 FCTD
413, [2003] F.C.J. No. 573 (QL), at paragraph 7, Mr. Justice Simon Noël said:
With
regard to the applicant’s credibility, I believe that the applicant is trying
to get the Court to substitute its opinion to the one of the Board. As Justice
Blanchard held in Hosseini v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 509
(F.C.T.D.):
The
assessment of the value of the applicant’s explanations, like that of the other
facts, is entirely within the jurisdiction of the Refugee Division, which also
has recognized expertise in weighing the merits of testimony on the situation
in various countries. This being so, I agree with the respondent’s arguments,
namely that the applicant could not simply repeat on judicial review an
explanation already given to the specialized tribunal and dismissed by it. In Muthuthevar
v. M.C.I., [1996] F.C.J. No. 207, on line: QL, Cullen J. was entirely of
this opinion at para. 7 of his reasons:
While
the applicant seeks to “explain away” testimony that the Board found
implausible, it must not be forgotten that these same explanations were before
the Board and were not accepted as credible. The applicant has not directed to
this Court evidence that was ignored or misconstrued, and in the absence of
such a finding, the Board’s conclusions on credibility must stand.
[66]
The
fact that the applicants are disappointed and disagree with the decision does
not warrant the intervention of this Court.
[67]
For
the foregoing reasons, I am satisfied that the panel’s decision is reasonable.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS AND
ADJUDGES that the application for
judicial review is dismissed. The parties did not submit a question of general
importance for certification.
“Max M. Teitelbaum”
Certified
true translation
Mary
Jo Egan, LLB
Email this Content