Date:
20130125
Docket:
IMM-3173-12
Citation:
2013 FC 053
Ottawa, Ontario,
January 25, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
GREGORY SHAWN JOHNSON
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Mr
Gregory Shawn Johnson has lived in Canada since 1988 when he arrived here from Jamaica. He was 15 at the time. He became a permanent resident two years later.
[2]
In
2007, Mr Johnson was convicted of assault with a weapon, aggravated assault,
and criminal negligence causing bodily harm. The victim was his two-year-old
daughter. He was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment, less three years’
credit for pre-trial custody.
[3]
In
2008, based on his crimes, Mr Johnson was found to be inadmissible to Canada.
[4]
While
in prison, Mr Johnson was diagnosed with schizophrenia. In 2010, he was
transferred to the Regional Treatment Centre (RTC) at Kingston Penitentiary. He
was prescribed anti-psychotic drugs to control his symptoms.
[5]
After
completing his sentence in 2011, Mr Johnson was transferred to the Toronto West
Detention Centre to await deportation. He applied for a pre-removal risk
assessment (PRRA), but the officer conducting the PRRA dismissed his
application. The officer concluded that Mr Johnson had not established that his
life would be at risk in Jamaica, or that he would be exposed to a risk of
cruel and unusual treatment.
[6]
Mr
Johnson argues that the officer’s decision was unreasonable given that she
overlooked evidence about his condition, failed to recognize that mistreatment
of mentally ill persons is widespread in Jamaica, and neglected to appreciate
the nature of the risk he fears.
[7]
In
essence, the sole issue is whether the officer’s decision was unreasonable.
II. The officer’s decision
[8]
The
officer reviewed the evidence before her relating to Mr Johnson’s condition.
This evidence consisted of medical notes from the Correctional Service of
Canada (CSC) and the Toronto West Detention Centre, and documentary evidence
about schizophrenia in general. The officer also reviewed evidence about the
availability of treatment in Jamaica particularly, and general country
conditions in Jamaica.
[9]
The
medical notes are difficult to decipher. The officer found that these notes
showed that Mr Johnson experiences schizophrenia and presents active symptoms
of the disease, but they did not actually describe those symptoms. The notes
also indicated that Mr Johnson takes anti-psychotic medications (olanzapine and
risperidone) and, if he discontinued them, that he would experience a relapse.
[10]
However,
the officer noted that there was no evidence about Mr Johnson’s medical history
prior to his diagnosis, little information about his symptoms or treatment compliance
history, and few details about his family support network. Given that symptoms
can vary widely, the officer felt she could not draw a conclusion about Mr
Johnson’s particular experience of schizophrenia.
[11]
Included
in the documentary evidence were letters written by physicians about other
patients. The letters describe the limited treatment available to schizophrenia
patients in Jamaica. The officer gave these letters little weight since they
were not about Mr Johnson.
[12]
The
officer referred to other documentary evidence showing that people with mental
health issues are stigmatized in Jamaica. Treatment is generally
community-based rather than institutional. Police receive special training in
dealing with mental health issues. However, some of the relatively new,
atypical anti-psychotic drugs are unavailable, and some patients are homeless.
[13]
The
officer felt there was insufficient evidence showing that Mr Johnson could not
obtain the treatment he needs in Jamaica. While his current medication may not
be available, the officer could not determine that other medications would be unsuitable.
Since it appears that he takes his medication now, one would expect that he
will continue to comply with his treatment in Jamaica.
[14]
The
officer also noted that there was little evidence that abuse of people with
mental illness is widespread in Jamaica. Further, the rate of homelessness
among the mentally ill is quite low.
[15]
The
officer also referred to documentary evidence showing the high crime rate and
poor human rights situation in Jamaica. However, conditions are improving and,
in any case, any risk to Mr Johnson would be generalized, experienced by the
population as a whole.
[16]
In
sum, the officer concluded that Mr Johnson had failed to establish a risk that
fell within s 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001,
c 27 (see Annex).
III. Was the officer’s
decision unreasonable?
[17]
Mr
Johnson points to three areas where the officer may have erred. I will consider
each in turn.
1. Did the officer overlook
the medical evidence relating to Mr Johnson’s condition?
[18]
The
evidence before the officer included the following information about Mr Johnson
and related topics:
•
his
prescription regimen (injections of risperidone and ingestion of olanzapine
tablets);
•
his
overall condition was good, but he continued to have auditory hallucinations
which did not bother him greatly;
•
he
experienced psychotic symptoms on admission, but those went away when he was
medicated;
•
his
symptoms would likely return within weeks without proper medication;
•
it
was unclear what medications were available in Jamaica;
•
his
designated representative believed Mr Johnson was unable to understand the
nature of the detention review proceedings;
•
general
information about schizophrenia and its treatment;
•
information
about the situation and resources in Jamaica, including the availability of
older medicines and the cost of newer medicines, the degree of discrimination
against the mentally ill, and the rate of homelessness among the mentally ill.
[19]
In
my view, the officer’s conclusion – that the evidence about Mr. Johnson’s
mental health issues and the circumstances he would likely face in Jamaica lacked detail – was not unreasonable. The officer’s reasons, as set out above,
included a fair summary of the actual evidence relating to Mr Johnson’s
condition.
2. Did the officer fail to
recognize that mistreatment of mentally ill persons is widespread in Jamaica?
[20]
As
the officer acknowledged, documentary evidence showed that the mentally ill in Jamaica are often stigmatized, abused or discriminated against, particularly those who have
been deported from abroad. However, documents also indicated that the mentally
ill can often be treated at home or in community facilities, the police are
usually able to calm down agitated persons, and volunteer groups and group
homes offer treatment to people with schizophrenia.
[21]
Given
the range of evidence before the officer, I cannot find that the officer’s
conclusion – that mistreatment of the mentally ill is not widespread in Jamaica – was unreasonable.
3. Did the officer neglect
to appreciate the nature of the risk he fears?
[22]
Mr
Johnson argues that the officer unreasonably failed to recognize that the
conditions facing him in Jamaica amount to cruel and unusual treatment.
[23]
In
light of the evidence reviewed above, I cannot agree with Mr Johnson’s
submission. The evidence did not contain particularities about Mr Johnson’s
personal circumstances or future needs. Nor did it support Mr Johnson’s
contention that he would face a substantial risk of mistreatment, abuse and
homelessness. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the office failed to
appreciate the nature of the risk underlying Mr Johnson’s PRRA application.
IV. Conclusion and
Disposition
[24]
The
officer’s conclusion represented a defensible outcome based on the facts and
the law. Therefore, it was not unreasonable, and I must dismiss this
application for judicial review. Neither party proposed a question of general
importance to be certified, and none is stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed;
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James W. O’Reilly”
Annex “A”
|
Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001 c 27
Person
in need of protection
97.
(1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to
their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country
of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject
them personally
(a) to a danger, believed
on substantial grounds to exist, of torture within the meaning of Article 1
of the Convention Against Torture; or
(b) to a risk to their
life or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if
(i) the person is unable or,
because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that
country,
(ii) the risk would be faced by
the person in every part of that country and is not faced generally by other
individuals in or from that country,
(iii) the risk is not inherent
or incidental to lawful sanctions, unless imposed in disregard of accepted
international standards, and
(iv) the risk is not caused by
the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care.
Person
in need of protection
(2) A person in Canada who is a member of a class of persons prescribed by
the regulations as being in need of protection is also a person in need of
protection.
|
Loi
sur l’immigration et la protection des réfugiés, LC 2001, ch. 27
Personne
à protéger
97.
(1) A qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et
serait personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la
nationalité ou, si elle n’a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa
résidence habituelle, exposée :
a) soit au risque, s’il y a des
motifs sérieux de le croire, d’être soumise à la torture au sens de l’article
premier de la Convention contre la torture;
b) soit à une menace à sa vie ou
au risque de traitements ou peines cruels et inusités dans le cas suivant :
(i) elle ne peut ou, de ce
fait, ne veut se réclamer de la protection de ce pays,
(ii) elle y est exposée en tout
lieu de ce pays alors que d’autres personnes originaires de ce pays ou qui
s’y trouvent ne le sont généralement pas,
(iii) la menace ou le risque ne
résulte pas de sanctions légitimes — sauf celles infligées au mépris des
normes internationales — et inhérents à celles-ci ou occasionnés par elles,
(iv) la menace ou le risque ne
résulte pas de l’incapacité du pays de fournir des soins médicaux ou de santé
adéquats.
Note
marginale : Personne à protéger
(2) A également qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au
Canada et fait partie d’une catégorie de personnes auxquelles est reconnu par
règlement le besoin de protection.
|
Email this Content