Docket:
IMM-1361-13
Citation: 2014 FC 388
Ottawa, Ontario, April 28, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MARIAN KOKY, ZANETA KOKYOVA,
MARIO KOKY AND SAMUEL KOKY
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The Applicants are Roma. The Refugee Protection
Division [RPD] of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada denied their
claims for refugee protection on the grounds that they had not rebutted the presumption
of state protection in Slovakia.
[2]
The RPD engaged in an extensive review of the
documentary evidence about state protection for Roma in the Slovak Republic and
concluded that “while the documentary evidence does show harassment and
discrimination towards Roma and other minorities in the Slovak Republic exist,
the documentary evidence is also clear that the authorities are making serious
efforts to address these and that there are results are being seen [sic].”
[3]
As has been said numerous times before, evidence
of efforts is not sufficient; what is relevant are results. Throughout the
decision the RPD speaks of various serious efforts, establishment of offices to
investigate, the recognition of the Roma language, training of police, setting
up complaint systems, adopting action plans, and legislative improvements;
however, there is scant detail of the results of any of these. The only
results mentioned by the RPD are that “in 2009, there were 24 convictions for
racially-motivated violence and during the first half of 2010, there were 14
convictions for racially motivated violence” and that “[s]even of the ten
policemen” who were charged for abusing six Romani boys “have been suspended
from duty.”
[4]
These “results” must be weighed against the
following findings by the RPD:
•
“there is some documentation which states that
attempts made by the state to improve the situation of the Roma have mostly
been ineffective and that there are instances when the police have been the
perpetrators of abuses against Roma persons;”
•
“I accept that many Roma face widespread
discrimination and inequality in education, housing, employment, public and
health services, as well as persistent prejudice and hostility;”
•
“an Inter-Ministerial Task Force has been set up
to monitor and evaluate regularly the plan’s implementation which the Advisory
Committee noted with satisfaction was composed of a multi-disciplinary group
consisting of governmental and non-governmental experts to co-ordinate actions
for combating racial discrimination,” but that “this body does not meet on a
regular basis and has not produced any tangible results so far;”
•
“that multiple sources report that Roma are
often the target of racially-motivated crimes, such as those committed by Nazis
and skinheads, and that Slovak police sometimes mistreat Roma or do not always
properly investigate crimes against Roma;” and
•
“the police response to racially-motivated
crimes has improved although it continues to face challenges,” and “police
brutality against Roma remains a concern”
[5]
The conclusion that “results are being seen” and that
state protection would be reasonably forthcoming if sought, does not fall “within
a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the
facts and law” given the analysis done by the RPD in this case: Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at para 47. For this reason the
application is allowed.
[6]
Neither party proposed a question for
certification.
Email this Content