Date:
20130507
Docket:
IMM-9467-12
Citation:
2013 FC 478
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Montréal, Quebec,
May 7, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
|
NELLY JANET
ARRECHAVALA DE ROMAN
|
|
Applicant
|
and
|
|
MINISTER OF PUBLIC
SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Introduction
[1]
The
applicant is seeking judicial review of a decision dated September 4,
2012, by a Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA] enforcement officer, in which
the officer denied the application to stay the execution of the applicant’s
removal order and decided that her deportation order was enforceable as of
September 16, 2012.
[2]
On
September 14, 2012, fearing that the applicant’s medical condition would
be irreparably harmed by removing her immediately, Justice Simon Noël
ordered an interim stay of enforcement of the impugned removal order pending a
final decision on the officer’s application for judicial review.
II. Facts
[3]
The
applicant, Nelly Janet Arrechavala de Roman, left her country, Guatemala, on
April 25, 2007, to come to take care of her mother who lives in Canada and
who was suffering from health problems at that time. Since then, the applicant
has been without status in Canada. Her refugee claim, her application for
permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate considerations [H&C] and
her pre‑removal risk assessment [PRRA] were all denied, respectively on
November 23, 2009, October 27, 2011, and December 5, 2011.
[4]
In
the month of April 2010, while she was in the process of regularizing her
status in Canada, the applicant was diagnosed with a high grade neuroendocrine
cancer with regional lymph node metastases, a rare colon cancer. According to
the medical evidence in the record, she was hospitalized for a splenic flexure
obstruction on April 3, 2010, then underwent emergency surgery on
April 22, 2010. She was subsequently treated with a course of chemotherapy
that lasted until the end of January 2011, and serial examinations were planned
for the coming years (letter from Dr. Valérie Leblanc).
[5]
Although
the applicant’s medical condition has progressed favourably since her
treatments began, the medical evidence in the record indicates that the
applicant’s condition requires close monitoring. She wears a subcutaneous
catheter to keep her [translation]
“substantial risk of recurrence” under observation (letter from Dr. Émilie Comeau,
CHUS-Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu [hospital]). Both physicians recommend that the
applicant remain in Canada for appropriate follow‑up.
[6]
On
May 24, 2012, the officer dealing with the applicant’s application for a
stay of the removal order sent her counsel an e‑mail from Dr. Patrick Thériault
of the Health Management Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada [CIC], in
which he stated:
We have reviewed the medical material submitted on
this client.
It appears this client was diagnosed with a very
aggressive colon tumour for which she received chemotherapy treatment in April
2010.
She requires follow-up care.
She is considered fit to fly according to IATA.
There are medical services in Guatemala including
oncology services that can provide her with follow up for her condition.
[7]
On
June 21, 2012, the applicant sent the officer a letter from Dr. Luis
Rosada Moran, deputy medical director of the Institut de cancérologie Dr
Bernardo del Valles, stating that the tests requested by her treating physician
were not available in their institution. In her view, it is preferable that the
tests be conducted in Canada where the applicant’s treatment began.
[8]
In
response to that letter, on July 20, 2012, the officer sent counsel for
the applicant an e‑mail from Dr. Thériault. This second e‑mail
reads as follows:
[Ms. Arrechavala de Roman] was diagnosed with a
rare colon cancer in 2010 for which she received surgery and chemotherapy in
Canada. She now requires specialized follow-up investigation (blood test and
PET scan).
She does not require escort for her transfer to
Guatemala.
PET scan is available in Guatemala as well as
specialized oncologist follow-up.
There are also tertiary care services in neighboring
countries such as Mexico and Panama.
[9]
The
applicant’s application for a stay of the removal order was denied on
September 4, 2012; that decision is the subject of this judicial review.
[10]
On
September 12, 2012, the applicant filed a new H&C application from
within Canada. The application is currently outstanding.
III. Issues
[11]
The
applicant essentially disputes the assessment of her medical evidence, which indicates
that she presents a substantial risk of recurrence of the cancer that she
suffered, that she needs appropriate medical follow‑up to monitor and
manage this risk and that in Guatemala she will not be able to access the care
and medical tests required by her treating physicians in Canada. Moreover, the
applicant submits that the officer did not consider the harm that her immediate
removal to Guatemala would cause given her medical condition.
[12]
Thus,
the two issues raised in this application for judicial review are the
following:
a. Did
the enforcement officer err by not considering the special circumstances
surrounding the application, i.e. the applicant’s medical condition?
b. Was
the officer’s refusal to grant a stay of the applicant’s removal order
justified having regard to all the evidence on record?
IV. Relevant statutory
provisions
[13]
The
authority granted to enforcement officers is set out in section 48 of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA]. Section 20
of the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act, SC 2012, c 17 [amending
act], which came into force on December 14, 2012, amended subsection 48(2)
of the IRPA. That provision now reads as follows:
48. (1) A removal
order is enforceable if it has come into force and is not stayed.
(2) If a removal order is
enforceable, the foreign national against whom it was made must leave Canada
immediately and the order must be enforced as soon as possible.
|
48. (1) La mesure
de renvoi est exécutoire depuis sa prise d’effet dès lors qu’elle ne fait pas
l’objet d’un sursis.
(2) L’étranger visé par la
mesure de renvoi exécutoire doit immédiatement quitter le territoire du
Canada, la mesure devant être exécutée dès que possible.
|
[Emphasis
added]
[14]
In
its previous version, subsection 48(2) of the IRPA read as follows:
48.
(2)
If a removal order is enforceable, the foreign national against whom it was
made must leave Canada immediately and it must be enforced as soon as is
reasonably practicable.
|
48. (2) L’étranger
visé par la mesure de renvoi exécutoire doit immédiatement quitter le
territoire du Canada, la mesure devant être appliquée dès que les
circonstances le permettent.
|
[Emphasis
added]
[15]
The
issue of whether and to what extent the amendment to section 48 of the IRPA
changed the mandate of enforcement officers, who must now consider whether it
is “possible” to enforce the removal order instead of deciding whether the
removal is “reasonably practicable” given the special circumstances of the
application (Baron v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81, [2010] 2 FCR 311), does not arise in this case.
The impugned decision was made under the previous version of the provision. The
parties did not address the legislative change in their written
representations, and the Court will not consider it for the purposes of this
application for judicial review.
V. Applicable standard of review
[16]
In
Baron, above, at paragraph 25, Marc Nadon J.A. of the Federal
Court of Appeal determined that the applicable standard of review for an
enforcement officer’s decision refusing to stay a removal is reasonableness (Hussain
v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2012 FC 1544 at para
17‑18 and Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
v Shpati, 2011 FCA 286).
[17]
In
applying the reasonableness standard to the officer’s decision, the Court is
concerned with “justification, transparency and intelligibility within the
decision‑making process. But it is also concerned with whether
the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are
defensible in respect of the facts and law” (Dunsmuir v New
Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at para 47; Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339 at para
59). As Justice James O’Reilly stated in Ramada v Canada (Solicitor
General), 2005 FC 1112, “it is only where [enforcement
officers]
have overlooked an important factor, or seriously misapprehended the
circumstances of a person to be removed, that their discretion should be
second-guessed on judicial review” (at para 7).
[18]
Thus,
in Turay v Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness),
2009 FC 1090, Justice Yvon Pinard summarized some factors that may be
decisive when the Court assesses the reasonableness of an enforcement officer’s
decision made in the exercise of the officer’s discretion:
[15] The applicable standard of review of an enforcement
officer’s decision refusing to defer an applicant’s removal from Canada is that
of reasonableness (Baron v. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness, 2009 FCA 81). The court should intervene if the decision of
the removals officer was unreasonable in the sense that it falls outside the
“range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the
facts and law” (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, at
paragraph 47). If the court concludes there has been a faulty analysis of the
best interests of the children, the enforcement officer’s decision will be
rendered unreasonable (Kolosovs v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration,
2008 FC 165).
[16] The removals officer’s source of power is subsection
48(2) of the Act which imposes a positive obligation on the Minister to execute
a valid removal order. However, even on the narrowest reading of subsection
48(2) there are a number of variables that can influence the timing of a
removal on a practicable basis as affirmed by Justice Denis Pelletier in Wang
v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2001] 3 F.C. 682 (T.D.). There are only two categories
of factors that can affect the officer’s decision: factual (practicable) and
legal (reasonable). This was expressed in Cortes v. Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, (2007), 308 F.T.R. 69, at paragraph 10:
.
. . removal must occur as soon as practicable, but only as soon as the
practicability of the removal is reasonable. . . .
It
is well-established that the “enforcement officer’s discretion to defer removal
is limited” (Baron, supra, at paragraph 49).
[17] Practicable considerations include “illness, other
impediments to travelling, and pending H&C applications that were brought
on a timely basis but have yet to be resolved due to backlogs in the system” (Simoes v. Canada
(M.C.I.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 936 (T.D.) (QL) quoted in Baron, supra,
at paragraph 49; see also Hasan v. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness, 2008 FC 1100, at paragraph 8). In Baron, at paragraph
51, the Federal Court of Appeal affirmed the comments in Wang, supra,
defining family hardship as a variable of low importance for a removals
officer. Indeed, Justice Pelletier stated as follows:
[48]
. . . deferral should be reserved for those applications or
processes where the failure to defer will expose the applicant to the risk of
death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment in circumstances and where
deferral might result in the order becoming inoperative. . . .
[18] In Mauricette v. Minister of Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness, , 2008 FC 420, at paragraph 23, the Court
explained reasonability to be:
.
. . where there are compelling circumstances that make it necessary for the
Officer to defer removal, then, justice would require that the Officer exercise
that discretion.
[Emphasis added]
VI. Analysis
Preliminary
issue
[19]
On
September 19, 2012, the applicant wrote to the national league against
cancer in Guatemala to find out whether it would be possible to continue the
medical follow‑up prescribed by her treating physician in Canada in her
country. The applicant’s record contains a letter dated September 24,
2012, in which Dr. Rosada Moran, deputy medical director of the Liga
national contra el cancer [national league against cancer], confirms that, as
the only specialized cancer treatment in Guatemala, their institute does not
have available certain examinations that the applicant needs and that other
examinations such as indoleactic acid, blood chromogranin and the PET scan have
just been put in place.
[20]
The
Court concurs with the respondent that a review of the lawfulness of an
administrative decision must be conducted on the basis of the evidence that was
before the decision‑maker. The applicant cannot supplement her evidence
to complete her record at the judicial review stage. As a result, the letters
submitted as Exhibits 13 and 14 in support of paragraphs 28‑30 of the
applicant’s affidavit are inadmissible and excluded from the Court record.
[21]
That
said, this evidence only confirms the evidence that was already before the
decision‑maker when he issued his decision, in particular the letter from
Dr. Rosada Moran.
(1) Did the
enforcement officer err by not considering the special circumstances
surrounding the application, i.e. the applicant’s medical condition?
[22]
In
Baron, above, at paragraph 51, the Federal Court of Appeal repeated
Justice Denis Pelletier’s reasons in Wang v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 148, [2001] 3 FC 682, concerning an
enforcement officer’s discretion to defer a removal:
- There
are a range of factors that can validly influence the timing of removal on even
the narrowest reading of section 48, such as those factors related to making
effective travel arrangements and other factors affected by those arrangements,
such as children’s school years and pending births or deaths.
- The Minister is bound by law to execute a valid
removal order and, consequently, any deferral policy should reflect this
imperative of the Act.
In considering the duty to comply with section 48, the availability of an
alternate remedy, such as a right to return, should be given great
consideration because it is a remedy other than failing to comply with a
positive statutory obligation. In instances where applicants are successful in
their H&C applications, they can be made whole by readmission..
- In order to respect the policy of the Act which
imposes a positive obligation on the Minister, while allowing for some
discretion with respect to the timing of a removal, deferral should be reserved
for those applications where failure to defer will expose the applicant to the
risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment. With respect to H&C
applications, absent special considerations, such applications will not justify
deferral unless based upon a threat to personal safety.
- Cases
where the only harm suffered by the applicant will be family hardship can be
remedied by readmitting the person to the country following the successful
conclusion of the pending application. [Emphasis
in the original].
[23]
The
respondent submits that, despite the peremptory wording of section 48 of
the IRPA, officers who are enforcing removal orders on behalf of the
Minister have “relatively narrow” or “very limited” discretion, that, in short,
gives them “limited” flexibility to defer a removal (Shpati, above, at
para 45 and Baron, above, at para 49). The respondent contends that, in cases
where there is no remedy that would allow the foreign national to come back to
Canada, such as an application for permanent residence or an application for
exemption based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations, the removals
officer must determine whether the foreign national would be exposed to a risk
of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment if returned to his or her country
(Shpati, at para 51). Last, the respondent adds that where an
application for exemption based on humanitarian and compassionate
considerations is pending at the time of the application to defer the removal,
the officer can exercise his or her discretion favourably only if the
application for exemption is based on a threat to personal safety (Shpati,
at para 43‑44 and Baron, at para 50).
[24]
Shpati and Baron
did not change, but clarified, the law on stay applications. In Ramada, above,
Justice O’Reilly noted:
[3] . . . officers can consider whether
there are good reasons to delay removal. Valid reasons may be related to the
person's ability to travel (e.g. illness or a lack of proper travel
documents), the need to accommodate other commitments (e.g. school or
family obligations), or compelling personal circumstances (e.g.
humanitarian and compassionate considerations). (See: Simoes v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000]
F.C.J. No. 936 (T.D.) (QL), Wang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), [2001] 3 F.C. 682 (T.D.) (QL), Prasad v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003]
F.C.J. No. 805 (T.D.) (QL); Padda v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), [2003] F.C.J. No.
1353 (F.C.) (QL)). It is clear, however, that the mere fact that a person has
an outstanding application for humanitarian and compassionate relief is not a
sufficient ground to defer removal. On the other hand, an officer must consider
whether exigent personal circumstances, particularly those involving children,
justify delay.
[Emphasis added].
[25]
It
is true that the mere existence of an application based on humanitarian and
compassionate considerations cannot prevent the enforcement of a valid removal
order unless there is a “threat to personal safety”. The issue is whether the
applicant’s medical condition and the fact that she would be deprived of the
medical treatment she needs could have amounted to a threat to personal safety
that the officer had to take into account.
[26]
However,
the applicant’s argument that she has a new outstanding H&C application is
irrelevant here because that application was submitted a week after the date of
the officer’s decision, i.e. on September 12, 2012. It has been clearly
established that, on an application for judicial review, an applicant may not challenge
a decision by relying on a question or fact that was not before the initial
decision‑maker unless the question goes to jurisdiction (Toussaint v
Canada (Labour Relations Board), [1993] FCJ No. 616 (QL/Lexis) (FCA), at
para 5; Chen v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 157
FTR 307, [2000] FCJ No. 1954 (QL/Lexis), at para 9‑12).
[27]
That
being said, the officer’s discretion to defer the enforcement of a removal, as
limited as it is, required him to be satisfied that the applicant’s medical
condition would not be jeopardized if she returned to Guatemala. The Court is
not convinced that the officer considered and reasonably assessed all the
medical evidence to ensure that an immediate removal would not expose the
applicant to the significant and imminent risks that her treating physicians
attested to.
(2) Was the
officer’s refusal to grant a stay of the applicant’s removal order justified having
regard to all the evidence on record?
[28]
With
respect, the officer’s decision is untenable when one considers the medical
evidence adduced by the applicant, both with respect to the risks and the course
of her disease, and the availability of the medical services required for her
treatment in her country. Because the applicant was not given any specific
reason in support of the decision under review, the Court can only presume that
the decision was made on the basis of the opinion of the CIC consultant, Dr. Thériault.
There are two short e‑mails in which Dr. Pelletier noted that the
applicant had a “rare” and “aggressive” colon cancer and stated, without any
basis, that the medical services required for the applicant’s condition exist
in Guatemala and in neighbouring countries. The Court notes that the applicant did
not meet with Dr. Thériault (applicant’s affidavit, at para 26), and his
opinion is based essentially on the applicant’s medical file.
[29]
Even
more important, that evidence is contradicted on a balance of probabilities by
the applicant’s evidence showing that not only is this an unusual case, which
the CIC medical consultant confirmed, but also that the care and examinations
required for the necessary follow‑up treatments are not available in
Guatemala. Following Shpati, above, at paragraph 41, the enforcement
officer could not simply refuse to defer the removal on the basis of the risks
alleged by the applicant because new evidence concerning those risks had been
submitted.
[30]
The
officer completely underestimated this risk, which goes to the applicant’s
health and life, by relying only on Dr. Thériault’s e‑mails. Assuming
he knew about the health services available in Guatemala and in the neighbouring
countries, it is totally unreasonable to require the applicant to travel to
those countries to undergo the tests and treatments that are necessary for her
condition. Although there are no grounds that permit the Court to ensure that
the officer seriously examined the applicant’s allegations and evidence, it is
obvious that the officer was not sensitive to the seriousness of the
applicant’s unique and personal circumstances and, in that sense, did not
reasonably exercise the discretion he has under subsection 48(2) of the IRPA.
VII. Conclusion
[31]
For
all the above reasons, the Court allows the applicant’s application for
judicial review. The officer’s decision is set aside, and the matter is
returned for reconsideration by another enforcement officer.
[32]
Counsel
for the respondent requested that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness, who is responsible for making and enforcing removal orders, be
substituted for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for the purposes of
this judicial review application in accordance with the Department of Public
Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, SC 2005, c 10, and the decision
dated April 4, 2005, PC 2005‑0482, and the Court concludes that the
application for judicial review be allowed and that the case be returned for
redetermination by another enforcement officer.
JUDGMENT
THE
COURT ORDERS as follows:
- The applicant’s application for judicial review is allowed, and the case
is returned for redetermination by another enforcement officer;
- No question
of general importance to be certified;
- The style
of cause is amended so that the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency
Preparedness replaces the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as
respondent in this proceeding, as appears in the above style of cause.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Certified
true translation
Mary
Jo Egan, LLB