Date: 20130219
Docket:
IMM-1763-12
Citation: 2013
FC 172
Toronto, Ontario,
February 19, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
|
|
DEQUAN AMATUS CARLTON EVANS
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
Court takes extraordinary care to protect the rights of minors; however, it
requires evidence to do so and none has been provided upon which to positively
respond to counsel’s plea to set aside the decision that the applicant minor’s
refugee claim has been abandoned.
[2]
Dequan
Amatus Carlton Evans is a citizen of St. Lucia. In September 2010, at the age
of 14, Dequan fled St. Lucia and his abusive father and made an inland claim
for refugee protection in Canada. Dequan was assisted in his travel to Canada and in making his refugee claim by his mother. When he arrived, he lived with her
and his stepfather in the Greater Toronto Area.
[3]
Dequan’s
mother was appointed as his designated representative and she retained current
counsel to represent him in the refugee claim, and presumably this application.
[4]
The
Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board scheduled
Dequan’s refugee hearing for May 9, 2011. Only his counsel attended. Counsel advised
the Board that Dequan was ill and could not attend, but did not provide the
Board with any doctor’s note or other substantiation of the illness.
[5]
On
July 7, 2011, Dequan and his counsel were notified by mail that a ‘show cause’
hearing would be convoked on September 9, 2011, to permit him a chance to
explain why he did not appear at his refugee hearing and address whether his
claim should be declared abandoned.
[6]
Neither
Dequan nor his counsel appeared at the September 9, 2011 show cause hearing. Counsel,
however, faxed the Board on that date a short letter advising that Dequan could
not attend that day’s hearing due to unspecified “medical reason(s)” –
corroborated by a doctor’s note of similarly-limited explanatory value – and
proposed that the Board reschedule the show cause hearing to a new date.
[7]
The
Board obliged. By letter dated October 17, 2011, the Board notified Dequan and
his counsel that the show cause hearing would take place on November 18, 2011.
[8]
Once
again, Dequan did not attend. Counsel, however, attended, and advised:
Unfortunately, the minor claimant is not here. We
have not received any medical note yet but I…like I said before we went on the
record, I did get a valuable information that claimant is still not very well.
[9]
The
Board then asked when the last time counsel had heard from the applicant. His
answer: September 9, 2011. After reviewing Dequan’s attendance record before
the Board and noting that he lived with his mother and stepfather in Canada, the Board concluded that Dequan was not taking the refugee process seriously and
declared his refugee claim abandoned.
[10]
The
applicant’s most superficially-appealing argument in this application is that Dequan’s
“mother had been going through traumatic personal problem which might be
preventing her from taking decision in the interest of the minor, such that the
minor applicant might not even have been aware of the date of the
proceeding of November 18, 2011 [sic] [emphasis added].” However, there
is not one shred of evidence before the Court relating to Dequan’s knowledge or
lack thereof, his mother’s situation, or indeed of anything relating to
Dequan’s situation or that of his family here, or of counsel’s interactions
with any of them. In short, counsel offers the Court nothing other than mere
speculation and suggestion and that cannot be the foundation of any reasonable
or proper decision.
[11]
This
application has no merit. I agree with the respondent that, quite simply, on
the record before the Board and in this Court, there is no evidence that the
Board failed to observe any principle of natural justice or that its decision
that the refugee claim was abandoned was unreasonable. Dequan was represented
by counsel and had his mother as a designated representative, they were all notified
of the hearings, was indeed given an additional opportunity to appear
beyond the September 9, 2011 hearing, where Dequan failed to attend for the
second time, and none of these three individuals or any other has provided
evidence to this Court that explains why Dequan could not or did not attend the
scheduled hearings. In this case, the Board went above and beyond the
requirement to hold one show cause hearing.
[12]
This
application must be dismissed. No question was proposed for certification.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this application is dismissed and no
question is certified.
"Russel W.
Zinn"
Email this Content