Trujillo Sanchez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 732

Date: 20060612

Docket: IMM-3818-05

Citation: 2006 FC 732

Ottawa, Ontario, June 12, 2006

PRESENT:      The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes

BETWEEN:

LUIS MIGUEL TRUJILLOSANCHEZ

DEYSSE JHANET VELANDIA BARON

Applicant(s)

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent(s)

SUPPLEMENTAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]                At the conclusion of the hearing of this matter held on April 19, 2006, I allowed the parties seven (7) days after the rendering of my Reasons for Judgment and Judgment dated May 16, 2006 to consider the issue of certifying a question. Counsel for the Applicant has done so and proposed two questions as follows:

1.              Before seeking protection from another state, is a person required to make reasonable lifestyle changes demanded by the agent of persecution to reduce the risk of harm?

2.              What is the test for determining whether a lifestyle change or choice is reasonable?

[2]                Counsel for the Respondent opposed the certification of a question stating that the underlying issues which arise from my decision have already been resolved at least with respect to the existence of internal flight alternatives. He states that the jurisprudence " is applicable with the same force to the facts of the present case". He also asserts that cases like this tend to be quite fact-specific which reduces the precedential value of any decision made in the area.

[3]                While I tend to agreed that the circumstances of this case are similar to those for which considerable jurisprudence does exist, that similarity appears to me to arise largely by analogy. In the result, some guidance from the Court of Appeal could be of additional value in subsequent cases. Accordingly, I will certify a question in this case but framed in a different way to the questions proposed by the Applicant. The question that I will certify is as follows:

          Before seeking protection from another state, is a person obliged to make lifestyle or employment changes which would offer protection from persecution or which could protect the life and safety of a claimant and, if so, what is the test for making a such determination?

JUDGMENT

THIS COURT ADJUDGES that the following question be certified in this case:

          Before seeking protection from another state, is a person obliged to make lifestyle or employment changes which would offer protection from persecution or which could protect the life and safety of a claimant and, if so, what is the test for making a such determination?

"R. L. Barnes"

FEDERAL COURT

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           IMM-3818-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           LUIS MIGUEL TRUJILLOSANCHEZ

                                                            DEYSSE JHANET VELANDIA BARON

                                                            and

                                                            THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

                                                            IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                     Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                       April 19, 2006

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

AND JUDGMENT]:                                     Justice Barnes

DATED:                                              June 12, 2006

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Timothy Wichert                                                                for the Applicant

Mr. Bernard Assan                                                                    for the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Jackman & Associates                                                               for the Applicant

Barristers & Solicitors

Toronto, Ontario

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA                  for the Respondent

Department of Justice

Toronto, Ontario