Docket: IMM-4045-14
Citation:
2015 FC 371
Ottawa, Ontario, March 24, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
NICOLAS MILLER
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
This is an application for judicial review
pursuant to subsection 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA] of the decision of a senior immigration officer
wherein the application for permanent residence processed from within Canada on
humanitarian and compassionate [H&C] grounds under subsection 25(1) of IRPA
was refused.
[2]
The applicant is a citizen of St. Vincent and the Grenadines who came to Canada in 2003 as a visitor and remained in Canada without status since that time. He submitted an H&C application on September 20,
2013.
[3]
The applicant submitted in his H&C
application that he has a 4 year-old son in Canada for whom he has sole custody
since his mother is unable to take care of him. His son is a Canadian citizen
and has a serious and permanent hearing impairment, for which he wears hearing
aids and receives care in Montréal.
[4]
If his son had to go with him to St. Vincent, he
would lose the medical, therapy and school services that he benefits from as a
citizen of Canada. This would exacerbate his isolation and problems as a deaf
person. In support of this submission, the applicant provided medical letters
from his son’s paediatrician and audiologist, confirming his hearing impairment.
The paediatrician stated that it was in the boy’s best interests to remain in
Québec, where he could receive the proper care, and the audiologist said that
to her knowledge and according to the parents, adequate professional services
could not be offered to him in the Caribbean.
[5]
On February 19, 2014, the officer contacted the applicant
requesting, among other things, information regarding the medical care
available to his son in St. Vincent.
[6]
The applicant responded by letter that the
medical care available to his son in Canada would not be available to him in St. Vincent. He stated that in St. Vincent, the deaf are fitted with low tech amplifiers
rather than blue tooth devices that address specific needs and deaf children
are given an inferior education rather than the specialized schooling and
resources they receive in Canada.
[7]
At the end of this letter, the applicant wrote:
P.S. I have attached a study I found on the
internet that may also help to explain the bad situation for deaf children in St. Vincent.
[8]
However, according to the respondent, no such
document was ever received.
[9]
On April 28, 2014, the officer refused the applicant’s
H&C application.
[10]
With respect to the applicant’s son the officer
stated that, despite a request for further information regarding the medical
care available to him in St. Vincent, the applicant had provided additional
written statements but no corroborative evidence.
[11]
The officer concluded that the applicant’s son
could return with him to St. Vincent, given that: there was no evidence to
suggest he would not have access to resources in St. Vincent to assist with his
disability; the applicant’s family could assist with the transition period in
relocating to St Vincent; and, as a Canadian citizen, he could return to Canada
at any time.
[12]
The determinative issue in the present case is
whether the officer breached procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant
with an opportunity to provide the missing Report given that the applicant’s
letter stated that it was attached.
[13]
A question of procedural fairness is to be
reviewed on a correctness standard (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12 at para 43; Riaji v Canada (Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1240 at para 24; Galyas v
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2013 FC 250 at para 27).
[14]
The applicant submits that the officer erred by
failing to consider or follow-up on the report entitled “Sociolinguistic Profiles of the Deaf Communities in
Trinidad, St. Vincent and Grenada” [the Report]. It was clearly relevant
evidence as the officer found that, without evidence to the contrary, she was
not satisfied that the applicant’s son would not have access to resources in
St. Vincent to assist with his disability. The officer had a duty to request a
copy of the missing study from the applicant given that it was corroborative
evidence regarding the inadequacy of health services for deaf children in St.
Vincent, and given that the applicant’s letter had stated clearly that the
Report was “attached”.
[15]
The respondent argues that the Report, which is
included in the Applicant’s Record, was not submitted by the applicant in
support of his H&C application and should not be considered by the Court.
The onus is on the applicant to submit the evidence in support of his
application (Owusu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2004 FCA 38 at para 8 [Owusu]; Nguyen v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 236 at paras 7-8, 13). The officer
gave the applicant an opportunity to provide documents once, and did not have
an obligation to do so again. In any case, there were other deficiencies in the
applicant’s evidence, and the officer’s decision was reasonable.
[16]
Procedural fairness requires that an applicant
be provided with a meaningful opportunity to present the various types of
evidence relevant to his or her case and to have it fully considered (Baker
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 at
para 28; Sinnathamby v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
2011 FC 1421 at para 25; Ghasemzadeh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2010 FC 716 at para 27).
[17]
There is contradictory evidence in this case
with respect to the Report that the applicant has included in the Applicant’s
Record. The applicant affirms that the Report was submitted, while the officer
affirms that it was not.
[18]
I am satisfied that the Report was relevant to
the officer’s BIOC analysis, as per this note in the decision:
[…] I also requested information from Mr.
Miller regarding the medical care available for [his son] in Saint Vincent. In
response to this request, Mr. Miller provided additional written statements.
[…]
He further states:
P.S. I have attached a study I found
on the internet that may also help explain the bad situation for deaf children
in St. Vincent.
However to date no report has been received.
Aside from Mr. Miller’s statements regarding the situation for deaf children in
Saint Vincent and the lack of resources, no corroborative evidence regarding
his findings has been submitted.
[19]
The absence of this evidence led to the
following specific key finding:
Without evidence to the contrary, I am not
satisfied that if [his son] were to depart Canada with his father, he would not
have access to resources in Saint Vincent to assist with his disability.
[20]
I agree with the respondent that while the applicant
had the onus of establishing the facts on which his H&C claim rested, in
the circumstances of this case the officer should have been alert to the fact
that the applicant specifically mentioned in his letter that a specific
document was attached, and that absent a notification from the officer, he
would have no way of knowing that it was not.
[21]
In the circumstances, at a minimum, the officer
should have informed the applicant that the Report was missing and requested a
copy. By failing to do so, the officer breached her duty of procedural
fairness.
[22]
For these reasons, the application for judicial
review is allowed. There are no questions for certification.
Email this Content