Docket: T-232-17
Citation:
2017 FC 872
Ottawa, Ontario, October 3, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
JADE ELIZABETH
THELWELL
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Due to a series of extremely ill-advised
decisions on her part, Jade Thelwell finds herself without a Canadian passport.
As a result, she is unable to travel to the United States to pursue her dream
of a career as a pop singer.
[2]
By this application Ms. Thelwell seeks
judicial review of a decision of the Investigations Division of the Passport
Program Integrity Branch of Citizenship and Immigration Canada which found that
she had provided false or misleading information in connection with her
passport application. Consequently, a five-year suspension of passport services
was imposed on Ms. Thelwell.
[3]
Ms. Thelwell does not dispute the fact that
she provided false information in her passport application. She submits,
however, that the five-year suspension of passport services was unreasonable as
it failed to take relevant facts into account, including her explanation for
her error. The decision-maker further erred, Ms. Thelwell says, by failing
to consider the disproportionate effect that a lengthy period of passport ineligibility
would have on her career and mental health, and by failing to properly balance
the objectives of the Passport Program against the impact that a five-year
suspension of passport services would have on her Charter‑protected
mobility rights.
[4]
For the reasons that follow, I have concluded
that the Passport Program Integrity Branch failed to recognize that Charter‑protected
rights were at stake in this case or to weigh the objectives of the Passport
Program against Ms. Thelwell’s interests, including the effect of a
five-year period of suspension of passport services on her Charter‑protected
mobility rights. Consequently Ms. Thelwell’s application for judicial
review will be granted.
I.
Background
[5]
Ms. Thelwell is a 25 year old Canadian
citizen and aspiring pop singer. She asserts that in 2014, she had dealings
with a potential backer who told her that he would support her work
financially. The promised financial support never materialized, however, and
the relationship between Ms. Thelwell and the putative investor ended when
it became clear that he wanted there to be more than just a business
relationship between the two of them.
[6]
Ms. Thelwell says that she was “offended and angry” when she discovered that her
putative investor was making similar promises to other young women, and, in a
series of emails, she demanded that he pay her the money that he had promised.
This led to Ms. Thelwell being charged with extortion and criminal
harassment in November of 2014. On December 10, 2014, the Toronto police seized
Ms. Thelwell’s passport in satisfaction of a bail condition.
[7]
The charge of extortion was subsequently
dropped, and Ms. Thelwell pled guilty to the charge of criminal harassment
for which she received an absolute discharge. Although she tried to get her passport
back from the police, Ms. Thelwell says that the police representative
that she was dealing with refused to return the passport to her.
[8]
Ms. Thelwell states that she spoke to the
lawyer who had represented her in her criminal case and that he told her that
the police might have destroyed her passport. Ms. Thelwell states that her
lawyer also told her that her absolute discharge meant that she did not have a
criminal record, and that she could simply apply for a new passport.
Ms. Thelwell asserts that she understood this to mean that she did not
have to disclose the fact that she had been arrested or charged with criminal
offences in her passport application.
[9]
Ms. Thelwell applied for a new passport in
June of 2015. Along with her application she included a “Declaration concerning a lost, stolen, inaccessible, damaged
or found Canadian passport”, in which she stated that her previous
passport was “about to expire, water damaged,
inaccessible, thrown out at home by someone else”.
[10]
Shortly after Ms. Thelwell applied for a
new passport, the Toronto police advised the Passport Integrity Branch that
they were holding Ms. Thelwell’s passport and that it had been seized
pursuant to a bail condition. Consequently, Ms. Thelwell was asked to
complete a questionnaire regarding her allegedly lost passport.
Ms. Thelwell stated in her completed questionnaire that she could not
remember exactly when she had lost her passport, but that she thought that it
had occurred sometime in the preceding four months. She also indicated that she
had not filed a police report regarding her lost passport because she knew it
was “thrown out/destroyed but not lost”.
[11]
The Passport Integrity Branch then sent
Ms. Thelwell a letter informing her that she was under investigation as
information had been received suggesting that she may have submitted false or
misleading information in her passport application. Ms. Thelwell was asked
to complete a second questionnaire which included questions that were
specifically directed to the allegations against her.
[12]
In particular, Ms. Thelwell was asked
whether a Canadian passport in her name had ever been seized by the police, to
which she responded: “[n]o a passport has never been
seized”. The very next question noted that information had been received
from the Toronto police that Ms. Thelwell’s passport had been seized as
part of a bail condition, and she was asked for an explanation. She responded
that her most recent passport had been taken by the police, but that the police
did not want to return it “when the charges were
dropped”. She went on to state that her lawyer had advised her to apply
for a new passport “since first was damaged and second
police is giving hard time”.
[13]
Between July 31, 2015 and August 18, 2015,
Ms. Thelwell sent more than 20 emails to the Passport Integrity Branch
explaining her version of events. Amongst other things, she suggested that she
had been confused as to whether it was her current passport that had been
damaged or an earlier one. Ms. Thelwell stated in an August 3, 2015 email that
“[e]verything was true on that application I sent! I
was just referring to my other passport I had before the one seized”.
II.
The Decision Under Review
[14]
A Passport Integrity Branch investigator
concluded that Ms. Thelwell had provided false or misleading information
in connection with her passport application. She was then offered the
opportunity to submit information that would “contradict
or neutralize” this finding. Ms. Thelwell responded with another
flurry of emails that primarily focused on the impact that a period of refusal
of passport services would have on her musical career.
[15]
Ms. Thelwell also repeated her claim that
she was referring to an earlier passport when she declared that her passport
had been damaged or thrown out, and not the one that had been seized by the
police. However, the Passport Integrity Branch noted that Ms. Thelwell’s
previous passport application contradicted her description of how her earlier
passport had been lost. Consequently, it advised Ms. Thelwell that its
investigation had concluded and that a decision would be made in her case,
which would consider whether a period of refusal of passport services would be
imposed.
[16]
On September 11, 2015, the Passport Integrity
Branch issued a decision pursuant to sections 4, 9, 10 and 10.2 of the Canadian
Passport Order, SI/81-86, which provides the Passport Integrity Branch with
the discretionary power to refuse passport services to individuals who provide
false or misleading information in a passport application.
[17]
The Passport Integrity Branch found that there
was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Ms. Thelwell had
provided false or misleading information in the declaration that she had
submitted with her passport application. As a result, it refused to issue a passport
in Ms. Thelwell’s name, and a five-year period of refusal of passport
services was imposed on her.
[18]
On October 29, 2015, Ms. Thelwell’s counsel
provided further written submissions to the Passport Integrity Branch,
requesting reconsideration of the five-year refusal period. These submissions
were primarily based the impact that the decision would have on
Ms. Thelwell’s career as an aspiring pop singer for whom travel to the United
States was critical for success. By letter dated November 30, 2015, the Passport
Integrity Branch advised Ms. Thelwell that its September 11, 2015
decision was final.
[19]
Ms. Thelwell sought judicial review of the
November 30, 2015 decision, arguing that the Passport Integrity Branch erred in
refusing to reconsider her passport application in light of the new evidence
provided by her counsel. In a decision reported at 2016 FC 1304, Justice
Southcott found that the Passport Integrity Branch had inappropriately fettered
its discretion by failing to recognize that it had the discretion to reconsider
passport decisions. This constituted a reviewable error of the sort recognized
by this Court in Kurukkal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2009 FC 695, 347 F.T.R. 60, aff’d 2010 FCA 230, [2010] F.C.J.
No. 1159.
[20]
Consequently, Justice Southcott set aside the
November 30, 2015 Passport Integrity Branch decision and remitted
Ms. Thelwell’s reconsideration request to a different decision-maker for
redetermination.
III.
The Reconsideration Decision
[21]
Following Justice Southcott’s decision,
Ms. Thelwell provided additional submissions to the Passport Integrity
Branch, including a letter from her therapist describing her mental state, as
well as social media postings and a completed passport application. In a letter
dated January 23, 2017, the Passport Integrity Branch informed
Ms. Thelwell that the five-year refusal of passport services would stand.
This decision is the subject of the present application for judicial review.
IV.
The Issues
[22]
While she claims that it was inadvertent,
Ms. Thelwell does not dispute that she provided false or misleading
information in her 2015 passport application. Nor does she dispute that
decisions refusing passport services are reviewable on the standard of
reasonableness. Ms. Thelwell submits, however, that the duration of the
penalty imposed on her by the January 23, 2017 decision was unreasonable,
as the decision-maker failed to take relevant facts into consideration, and to
proportionally balance these facts against the objectives of the Passport Program
as required by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Doré v. Barreau du
Québec, 2012 SCC 12, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 395.
V.
Analysis
[23]
Subsection 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982 being Schedule B
to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c. 11, provides that “[e]very citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in
and leave Canada”. The Federal Court of Appeal has determined that the
refusal of passport services infringes the mobility rights protected under
subsection 6(1) of the Charter: Kamel v. Canada (Attorney General),
2009 FCA 21 at paras. 15 and 68, [2009] 4 F.C.R. 449, leave to appeal to S.C.C.
refused, [2009] S.C.C.A. No. 124 (Kamel #1); Kamel v. Canada
(Attorney General), 2013 FCA 103, [2013] F.C.J. No. 402 (Kamel #2).
[24]
Discretionary administrative decisions that
engage Charter rights are to be arrived at using the analytical
framework established by the Supreme Court in Doré. As Justice Abella
subsequently noted, “Doré requires
administrative decision-makers to proportionately balance the Charter
protections - values and rights - at stake in their decisions with the relevant
statutory mandate”: Loyola High School v. Quebec (Attorney General),
2015 SCC 12 at para. 35, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 613.
[25]
Although Ms. Thelwell asserts that the errors in
the information that she provided to the Passport Integrity Branch were the
result of innocent mistakes on her part, she has not challenged the finding
that she provided false or misleading information in connection with her
passport application. Given the inconsistent and evolving nature of the
explanations that Ms. Thelwell provided over the course of this matter,
suffice it to say that the Passport Integrity Branch’s finding on this point is
entirely reasonable.
[26]
The issue for determination is thus whether the
imposition of a five-year suspension of passport services on Ms. Thelwell
was reasonable.
[27]
The parties agree that the objectives of the Passport
Program include contributing to the international fight against terrorism and
complying with Canada’s commitments in this area, as well as maintaining the
good reputation of the Canadian passport: Kamel #1, at para. 50.
[28]
The parties disagree, however, as to the factors
that are to be balanced in determining whether the infringement of Ms. Thelwell’s
mobility rights was reasonable. The respondent submits that the objectives of
the Passport Program have to be balanced against the seriousness of
Ms. Thelwell’s misconduct. According to the respondent,
Ms. Thelwell’s personal circumstances are irrelevant to the balancing
exercise that has to be carried out by the Passport Integrity Branch.
[29]
In contrast, Ms. Thelwell submits that the
objectives of the Passport Program have to be balanced against the impact on
her of a decision suspending her access to passport services, in light of her
particular personal circumstances.
[30]
The Supreme Court of Canada held in Doré
that once the relevant statutory or program objectives have been identified,
decision-makers must then consider “how the Charter
value at issue will best be protected in view of the statutory objectives”:
at para. 55. The Court went on to note that this is “at
the core of the proportionality exercise, and requires the decision-maker to
balance the severity of the interference of the Charter protection with
the statutory objectives”: at para. 56. This proportionality test will
be satisfied if the measure “‘falls within a range of
possible, acceptable outcomes’”: at para. 56, referencing Dunsmuir v.
New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 at para. 47, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190.
[31]
The Federal Court of Appeal determined in Kamel
#2 that the Passport Program must balance program objectives against an
applicant’s interests in imposing a period of suspension of passport services:
at para. 32. The Court further noted that this is a highly fact-based exercise,
which calls for deference in reviewing a decision to impose a period of
suspension of passport services: Kamel #2 at para. 35.
[32]
However, the Federal Court of Appeal went on in Kamel
#2 to state that it “would not give any deference
to a ministerial decision that does not take Charter rights into account
or that restricts them disproportionately” as “[t]hat
would be an unreasonable decision”: Kamel #2 at para. 35.
[33]
I am not persuaded that the Passport Integrity
Branch reasonably balanced the competing considerations in this case.
[34]
The administration of the Passport Program is
governed by the Passport Program Delivery Instructions. These
Instructions provide that where it has been determined that an individual has
provided false or misleading information in connection with a passport
application, a maximum period of suspension of passport services of 10 years is
possible in accordance with provisions of section 10 of the Canadian
Passport Order. The Instructions state, however, that the period of passport
ineligibility that will usually be imposed is five years. The Instructions
also note that co-operation with the Passport Program during the course of an
investigation may reduce the period of refusal of passport services. No other
possible mitigating factor is identified in the Instructions.
[35]
There is nothing in the Passport Program
Delivery Instructions that recognizes that Charter‑protected
mobility rights are implicated in decisions such as this. Nor is there any
indication in the decision under review that the Passport Integrity Branch was
aware that Ms. Thelwell’s Charter rights were implicated in this
case.
[36]
The decision-maker was clearly aware of
Ms. Thelwell’s claim that she was “not an average
Canadian”, and that a five-year suspension of passport services would
have more of an impact on her than it would on an average person who used their
passport only occasionally. However, the reasons provided for imposing a
five-year period of passport ineligibility on Ms. Thelwell do not address
the impact that the decision would have on her mobility rights. Nor does the
decision-maker balance Ms. Thelwell’s interests against the objectives of
the Passport Program, as he or she was required to do: Kamel #2 at para.
32.
[37]
Instead, the “standard
ineligibility period” of five years was simply imposed on
Ms. Thelwell on the basis that five-year suspensions of passport services
have been found by this Court “to be a reasonable
period in light of the facts on which those cases were decided” [my
emphasis].
[38]
As the Supreme Court observed in Doré, “the nature of the reasonableness analysis is always
contingent on its context”: at para. 7, citing Catalyst Paper Corp.
v. North Cowichan (District), 2012 SCC 2, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 5. The Supreme
Court went on to observe that “[i]n the Charter
context, the reasonableness analysis is one that centres on proportionality,
that is, on ensuring that the decision interferes with the relevant Charter
guarantee no more than is necessary given the statutory objectives”. The
Court went on to observe that “[i]f the decision is
disproportionately impairing of the guarantee, it is unreasonable. If, on the
other hand, it reflects a proper balance of the mandate with Charter
protection, it is a reasonable one”: at para. 7.
[39]
A review of the passport cases decided by this
Court and by the Federal Court of Appeal confirms that, almost without
exception, a five-year period of passport ineligibility is imposed once it is
determined that there has been misconduct, including providing false or
misleading information in a passport application: Kamel #2; Abdi v.
Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 642, [2012] F.C.J. No 945; Allen v.
Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 213, 476 F.T.R. 116; Brar v. Canada
(Attorney General), 2014 FC 763, 460 F.T.R. 248; De Hoedt v. Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 829, 462 F.T.R. 162; Dias
v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 64, 466 N.R. 80, aff’d 2014 FCA 195,
[2014] F.C.J. No. 958; Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 376,
[2016] F.C.J. No 343; Gomravi v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC
1044, 441 F.T.R. 28; Latifi v. Canada (Minister of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade), 2013 FC 939, [2013] F.C.J. No. 975; Lipskaia v.
Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 526, [2016] F.C.J. No. 489; Mikhail
v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 724, 435 F.T.R. 235; Okhionkpanmwonyi
v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 1129, [2011] F.C.J. No. 1389; Eastwood
v. Canada also referred to as Saint-Vil v. Canada (Attorney General),
2014 FC 48, 446 F.T.R. 79; Sathasivam v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013
FC 419, 431 F.T.R. 261; Simmonds v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC
967, 439 F.T.R. 206; Slaeman v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 641, 412
F.T.R. 103; Villamil v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 686, 435
F.T.R. 88; Wong v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FC 152, [2017] F.C.J.
No. 177.
[40]
While the same period of suspension of passport
services was imposed in each of these cases, they cover a wide range of
misconduct. Virtually all of this misconduct was far more serious than that of
Ms. Thelwell – misconduct that in many cases was clearly intended to allow
non-Canadians to use Canadian passports in order to gain unlawful entry to this
country, thereby compromising the integrity of the Canadian passport system and
potentially threatening the national security of this country.
[41]
For example, Kamel #2 involved an
individual who had been convicted in France of membership in a criminal
organization for the purpose of preparing a terrorist act and complicity in the
forgery of three passports that he had brought from Canada. The French Court
described Mr. Kamel as the “… principal organizer of
international networks determined to prepare attacks and procure weapons and
passports for terrorists acting throughout the world” for which Mr. Kamel
was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment and permanent exclusion from France: at
para. 6. Despite the gravity of the circumstances in Kamel #2, a
five-year period of suspension of passport services was imposed in that case.
[42]
The applicants in Slaeman v. Canada were
each paid $10,000 U.S. to allow foreign nationals to use their Canadian
passports. The applicants then provided false information to Canadian passport
officials in support of their applications for replacement passports.
[43]
Abdi, De Hoedt,
Dias, Gomravi, Latifi, Mikhail, Okhionkpanmwonyi
and Sathasivam all involved Canadian citizens who were facilitating or
attempting to facilitate travel by foreign nationals on false Canadian
passports. Like Kamel #2 and Slaeman, these cases raised
significant security concerns, and negatively affected the integrity of the
Canadian passport system.
[44]
Brar, Eastwood,
Lipskaia and Wong were cases where individuals tried to obtain
multiple Canadian passports in different names, once again potentially
undermining the integrity of the Canadian passport system and jeopardizing our
national security.
[45]
In Simmonds and Villamil,
applicants were seeking passports for their children, in breach of the terms of
custody orders.
[46]
It is true that in Fontaine, above, this
Court upheld the imposition of a five-year period of passport ineligibility in
a factual situation that was similar to that in Ms. Thelwell’s case.
However, Mr. Fontaine failed to respond to correspondence from the Passport
Integrity Branch, and he provided no information regarding his personal
circumstances or any submissions with respect to the appropriate period of
passport ineligibility that should be imposed on him before a decision was made
in that regard. There were thus no countervailing considerations that had to be
weighed in arriving at an appropriate period of passport ineligibility in the Fontaine
case.
[47]
I have only been able to identify three cases
where something less than a five-year period of passport ineligibility was
imposed. A four-year period of passport ineligibility was imposed in Mbala
v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FC 107, 447 F.T.R. 121. In that case,
the applicant admitted to submitting false or misleading information to obtain
a passport issued in his name with his brother’s photo in order to facilitate
his illegal entry into Canada. Once again, the applicant’s actions had the
potential to undermine the integrity of the Canadian passport system, even
though the actions were taken for allegedly humanitarian reasons.
[48]
A four-year period of passport ineligibility was
also imposed in Krivicky v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 FC 1236, [2013]
F.C.J. No. 1335. The facts of this case are not discussed in any detail in the
Court’s decision, but it noted that the evidence before it was “sufficient to find that the applicant participated in a sham
relating to the issuance of a passport”: at para. 12.
[49]
Finally, a four-year period of passport
ineligibility had been imposed in Siska v. Canada (Passport), 2014 FC
298, [2014] F.C.J. No. 326. In that case, the applicant had attempted to use a
Canadian passport to assist her in committing the indictable offence of
possessing a forged passport and of attempting to use a forged or altered
document for the purpose of entering Canada. The applicant’s actions thus once
again undermined the integrity of the Canadian passport system and potentially
raised national security concerns. An application for judicial review of this
decision was granted by this Court for reasons that are not germane to the
analysis in this case.
[50]
Making a false statement in a passport
application is undoubtedly a serious matter, and the sanction for such
misconduct must reflect the gravity of the matter. That said, Doré
requires decision-makers to balance the severity of the interference with the
individual’s Charter‑protected rights against the objectives of
the program in question. This type of individualized assessment was absent in
this case, with the result that it cannot be said that the imposition of a
five-year period of passport ineligibility reflects a proportionate restriction
on Ms. Thelwell’s Charter‑protected mobility rights.
[51]
Ms. Thelwell was twenty-two years old when
she filed her passport application. She is a Canadian citizen, and there is no
suggestion that she was not otherwise entitled to a Canadian passport. Nor is
there any suggestion that she intended to use her passport for any improper or
unlawful purposes that might have undermined the integrity of the Canadian
passport system or implicated Canada’s national security. Without in any way
condoning Ms. Thelwell’s conduct, the gravity of her misconduct was
nowhere near the order of magnitude of the misconduct of other individuals who
received four- or five-year suspensions of passport services.
[52]
Ms. Thelwell also provided the Passport
Integrity Branch with information regarding her mental health, and the shame
that she evidently felt with respect to the criminal charges that she had
faced. She also provided substantial evidence with respect to the devastating
impact that a suspension of passport services would have on her musical career.
There is, however, no indication in the reasons provided by the Passport
Integrity Branch that it engaged with any of this evidence in any meaningful
way. Nor did it explain why it was reasonably necessary to refuse
Ms. Thelwell a passport for five years in order to preserve the integrity
of the Canadian passport system. It simply noted that “courts
have found five years to be a reasonable period in light of the facts on which
those cases were decided” – facts, that, as I have already noted, were
very different than the facts of this case.
[53]
Finally, while it is true that the negative
impact of the refusal of passport services is somewhat mitigated by the fact that
Ms. Thelwell can apply for a limited validity passport with geographical
restrictions for urgent, compelling and compassionate reasons, such as a
life-threatening illness or death in the family, this does not address the
infringement on her Charter‑protected right to leave and re-enter
Canada for other reasons.
[54]
The Federal Court of Appeal noted in Kamel
#2 that the refusal of passport services was mitigated by the possibility of
applying for a limited validity passport for urgent and compassionate reasons.
However, the option of applying for a limited validity passport is not a safety
valve that renders any refusal of passport services, imposed for any reason, of
any duration, reasonable. In Kamel #2, the Court concluded that there
was a “causal link between national security and
the Minister’s refusal to issue a passport to Mr. Kamel, who was sentenced in
France for crimes directly related to terrorism, including the counterfeiting
of passports”: para. 48 [my emphasis]. It was within this context
that the Court concluded that the possibility of obtaining a limited validity
travel document provided sufficient evidence of proportionality.
[55]
Ms. Thelwell’s situation is distinguishable. As
discussed above, in this case the Passport Integrity Branch failed to show a
causal link between the five-year refusal of services imposed on Ms. Thelwell
and the need to preserve the integrity of the Canadian passport system. As I
have determined that a five-year refusal of passport services was a
disproportionate infringement of Ms. Thelwell’s Charter-protected
mobility rights, in these circumstances, the possibility of applying for a
limited validity travel document for urgent and compassionate reasons does not
sufficiently mitigate this interference.
VI.
Conclusion
[56]
For these reasons, I am satisfied that the
Passport Integrity Branch failed to carry out the necessary analysis in balancing
the severity of the interference with Ms. Thelwell’s Charter‑protected
mobility rights with the objectives of the Passport Program. Consequently, her
application for judicial review will be granted. In accordance with the
agreement of the parties, Ms. Thelwell shall have her costs fixed in the
amount of $2,000.00.
VII.
The Request for Directions
[57]
Ms. Thelwell asks that if her application
for judicial review is granted, that the matter be returned to the Passport
Integrity Branch with Directions. These include Directions that
Ms. Thelwell be provided with a period of 30 days in which to submit new
evidence and arguments, and that the Passport Integrity Branch be required to
render a decision within 60 days of the date on which it receives any new
evidence and arguments from Ms. Thelwell, or is advised that no new
evidence or arguments will be provided. I note that Justice Southcott provided
similar Directions in relation to Ms. Thelwell’s earlier application for
judicial review and I am prepared to issue such Directions in this case.
[58]
Ms. Thelwell also asks that the Passport
Integrity Branch be directed to explicitly consider her reasons for what she
calls “the omission”, as well as the impact that
the refusal of passport services will have on her career and whether any
further limitations on Ms. Thelwell’s rights under subsection 6(1) of the Charter
are absolutely necessary to protect national security, public order, public
health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.
[59]
The obligations on the Passport Integrity Branch
to consider the Charter‑protected rights of passport applicants in
determining whether a period of passport ineligibility is appropriate are
clearly set out in the jurisprudence, including my reasons in this case. It is
thus unnecessary to direct the Passport Integrity Branch to comply with the
law.
Email this Content