Date: 20070529
Docket: IMM-2122-06
Citation: 2007 FC 561
Ottawa, Ontario, May 29, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
TERRENCE
CLAUDIUS JOHNSON
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
Mr.
Terrence Johnson’s refugee claim got lost in the system. He originally applied
for refugee status in 1988, after arriving in Canada from Trinidad. He checked
on the progress of his application several times but was told there was a long
backlog and he would simply have to wait. In the meantime, he was given a work
permit and a social insurance number.
[2]
No
further developments occurred until 2003 when, after a traffic violation, Mr.
Johnson was informed that he had no status in Canada. In order
not to be removed, he made a second refugee claim. In due course, that claim
was heard and decided in 2006 by a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board. At
his hearing, Mr. Johnson argued that the Board had lost jurisdiction over his
claim due to the passage of time. He also submitted that he continues to be at
risk of political persecution in Trinidad. The Board decided that it had
jurisdiction to entertain Mr. Johnson’s claim and found that he was no longer
at risk of persecution.
[3]
Mr.
Johnson argues that the Board erred in its finding that it continued to have
jurisdiction over his claim. I cannot conclude that the Board erred and must,
therefore, dismiss this application for judicial review.
I. Issue
[4]
Did
the Board have jurisdiction to deal with Mr. Johnson’s refugee claim?
II. Analysis
[5]
Courts
have acknowledged, in the context of immigration matters, the possibility that
an unreasonable delay by a decision-maker may result in a claimant being
treated unfairly. However, the claimant must show that he or she was somehow
prejudiced by the delay: Qazi v. Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1667, [2005] F.C.J. No. 2069
(T.D.) (QL); Rana v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 974, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1215
(T.D.) (QL); Akthar v. Canada (Minister of Employment and
Immigration), [1991] 3 F.C. 32 (C.A.). As Justice James Hugessen noted in Akthar,
sometimes claimants actually benefit from a delay – some may be granted
amnesty; others may be able to reinforce their cases with further evidence or
more compelling arguments; and some may be able to lively safely in Canada while the
turbulent circumstances in their countries of origin subside.
[6]
Mr.
Johnson’s case seems to fit into this last category. When he arrived in Canada, he alleged
political persecution by the party then in power – the United Labour Front. The
party he actively supported, the People’s National Movement, is now in power.
In the meantime, Mr. Johnson has lived and worked peacefully and safely in Canada, and has
founded a successful business here. He suggests that, if his claim had been
heard on a timely basis, he would have succeeded to establish a credible basis
for his claim, had the benefit of automatic humanitarian and compassionate
considerations and long since achieved permanent status in Canada. Perhaps. On
the other hand, he will now have the benefit of a full review on humanitarian
and compassionate grounds on the basis of having established himself in Canada successfully
over a long term. In a sense, then, the long delay in dealing with his refugee
claim may end up being to his benefit.
[7]
As
the respondent has conceded, the handling of Mr. Johnson’s refugee claim was an
“administrative disaster”. His file was merged with that of another claimant
with the same name. It took years to straighten this out. These circumstances,
and the corresponding hardships endured by Mr. Johnson, will no doubt be taken
into account by the officer considering his application for humanitarian and
compassionate relief.
[8]
I
can find no basis, however, for overturning the Board’s decision on Mr.
Johnson’s refugee claim. I must, therefore, dismiss this application for
judicial review. Counsel asked for an opportunity to make submissions regarding
a question for certification. I will entertain any submissions received within
ten days of this judgment.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT IS
THAT:
- The application for
judicial review is dismissed;
- The Court will
consider any submissions regarding a certified question that are filed
within ten (10) days of the issuance of these reasons.
“James
W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content