Date: 20070727
Docket: IMM-4758-06
Citation: 2007 FC 787
Ottawa, Ontario, July 27,
2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
BETWEEN:
NEVILLE
WASHINGTON BEAUMONT
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
[1]
The
Applicant claimed he was at risk of falling into the Jamaican drug culture due
to the absence of family in Jamaica and the possibility
that he will stop taking his medicines for his bi‑polar condition. This
is the judicial review of the PRRA decision denying the Applicant’s application
for protection.
II. FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
[2]
The
Applicant is a 46 year old citizen of Jamaica. He has been in Canada since he was
15 and became a permanent resident in 1978.
[3]
Mr.
Beaumont suffers from a bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia as a result of
injuries suffered in an automobile accident. He claimed that he needed his
family to help him with his mental health and to deal with his addiction to
crack cocaine and heroin.
[4]
The
Applicant had been convicted of numerous offences in the 1980s but through
stays and reconsiderations, he was not deported. He was more recently convicted
of trafficking and he is to be deported.
[5]
In
addition to his fear of falling into the Jamaican drug culture, he also says
that he is at risk of anti-social behaviour, physical and emotional harm and
that he will be sent to prison and will be sexually abused.
[6]
The
PRRA Officer rejected his application because the Applicant’s arguments are
speculative. The risk of falling into a drug culture is not a risk defined in
s. 96 or s. 97.
[7]
As
to his mental condition, the evidence is that so long as he takes his
medication, he can function well. The evidence also suggests that when the
Applicant does not take his medication, he engages in his drug addiction.
[8]
The
PRRA Officer conducted his own research into country conditions and noted the
U.K. Home Office Report which confirms that Jamaica provides
mental health services at a hospital, at out-patient clinics and rehabilitation
units. Medications are available.
[9]
The
Officer also noted that while the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health
indicates that family-centred care is ideal, there is nothing to suggest that
individuals cannot be treated away from their family.
III. ANALYSIS
[10]
As
to the standard of review, I adopt the reasoning found in Demirovic v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1284 at paragraph 23:
23. As to the appropriate standard of review to be applied to a decision of
a PRRA officer, in Kim v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
[2005] F.C.J. No. 540 (T.D.) at paragraph 19, Mr. Justice Mosley, after
conducting a pragmatic and functional analysis, concluded that "the
appropriate standard of review for questions of fact should generally be patent
unreasonableness, for questions of mixed law and fact, reasonableness simpliciter,
and for questions of law, correctness". Mr. Justice Mosley also endorsed
the finding of Mr. Justice Martineau in Figurado v. Canada (Solicitor
General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 458 (T.D.) at paragraph 51, that the
appropriate standard of review for the decision of a PRRA officer is
reasonableness simpliciter when the decision is considered
"globally and as a whole". This jurisprudence was followed by Madam
Justice Layden-Stevenson in Nadarajah v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2005] F.C.J. No. 895
(T.D.) at paragraph 13. For the reasons given by my colleagues, I accept this
to be an accurate statement of the applicable standard of review.
[11]
There
is nothing to indicate that the Officer misstated evidence or failed to
consider relevant evidence. In finding that the Applicant’s claim was
speculative, the Officer addressed both the issue of persecution under s. 96
and of risk under s. 97.
[12]
The
core of the Applicant’s claim is that he will be at risk flowing from his
failure to take his medication. There is no evidence that he is incapable of
taking his medicines. The means of preventing harm lies in his own hands.
[13]
The
Officer also found that there was state protection. The Applicant has provided
nothing that undermines this finding. The Officer even went so far as to
conclude that medical care was available even though the inability of a country
to provide adequate health or medical care is not a risk covered by s. 97.
[14]
The
conclusions of Justice Kelen in Grant v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. No. 191 (QL), albeit said
in the context of an irreparable harm analysis, is applicable to this
situation:
8. A fundamental principle
of immigration law is that non-citizens do not have a right to remain in Canada.
Canada is not and will not become a haven for criminals. If a non-citizen
commits a crime they are subject to the loss of their right to remain in Canada.
The jurisprudence has established that a mental or other illness does not give
a non-Canadian the right to remain in Canada. The cases have also established
that criminal activities, drug addition, and illnesses cannot be the foundation
for a claim of irreparable harm. Evidence proferred by the applicant regarding
irreparable harm that will result from his separation from his children,
separation from his treatment for PTSD, and lack of establishment in Jamaica is
speculative at best, and has been addressed at length by the IAD in its
original decision.
[15]
Therefore,
I find no basis for interfering with this decision. The application for
judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this
application for judicial review will be dismissed.
“Michael
L. Phelan”
Email this Content