Multini Amorin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 698

Date: 20050516

Docket: IMM-2055-04

Citation: 2005 FC 698

Ottawa, Ontario, May 16, 2005

Present:         The Honourable Mr. Justice Rouleau

BETWEEN:

                                          MARIA DEL ROSAR MULTINI AMORIN

                                                  AUGUSTIN MULTINI MULTINI

                                                                                                                                        Applicants

                                                                           and

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                             

                                                                                                                                     Respondent

                                           REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                This is an application for judicial review of a notification confirming the withdrawal of a refugee claim, dated February 13, 2004, whereby a registrar of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) notified the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI) that applicants Maria Del Rosar Multini Amorin and her son Augustin Multini Multini had withdrawn their refugee claim.

[2]                The female applicant and her son left Uruguay on January 16, 2003, in order to flee the female applicant's husband, who verbally abused her, beat her on several occasions, and threatened her with a weapon.

[3]                Once in Canada, the female applicant claimed refugee status; her hearing was set for December 16, 2003. This hearing was postponed until a later date because the member was ill. On February 11, 2004, the female applicant withdrew her refugee claim. On February 13, 2004, the IRB sent a notification of the withdrawal to the female applicant, her counsel and the MCI. The female applicant is now contesting this notification.

[4]                The female applicant essentially contends that the decision made with regard to her case does not comply with the principles of fundamental justice and procedural fairness. More specifically, she contends that she was denied a full and fair hearing at which she would have had a chance to be heard.

[5]                The issue is therefore as follows:

Does subsection 52(2) of the Convention Refugee Determination Division Rules violate a fundamental rule of justice?

[6]                The relevant provisions read as follows:

WITHDRAWAL

Abuse of process

52. (1) Withdrawal of a claim, or of an Application to Vacate Refugee Protection or an Application to Cease Refugee Protection, is an abuse of process if withdrawal would likely have a negative effect on the integrity of the Division. If no substantive evidence has been accepted in the proceedings, withdrawal is not an abuse of process.

Withdrawal if no evidence has been accepted

(2) If no substantive evidence has been accepted in the proceedings, a party may withdraw the party's claim or Application to Vacate Refugee Protection or Application to Cease Refugee Protection by notifying the Division orally at a proceeding or in writing.

Withdrawal if evidence has been accepted

(3) If substantive evidence has been accepted in the proceedings, a party who wants to withdraw the party's claim or Application to Vacate Refugee Protection or Application to Cease Refugee Protection must make an application to the Division under rule 44.

REINSTATING A WITHDRAWN CLAIM OR APPLICATION

Application to reinstate a withdrawn claim

53. (1) A person may apply to the Division to reinstate a claim that was made by that person and withdrawn.

Form and content of application

(2) The person must follow rule 44, include their contact information in the application and provide a copy of the application to the Minister.

Factors

(3) The Division must allow the application if it is established that there was a failure to observe a principle of natural justice or if it is otherwise in the interests of justice to allow the application.

52. (1) Il y a abus de procédure si le retrait d'une demande d'asile, d'une demande d'annulation ou d'une demande de constat de perte d'asile aurait vraisemblablement un effet néfaste sur l'intégrité de la Section. Il n'y a pas abus de procédure si aucun élément de preuve de fond n'a été accepté dans le cadre de l'affaire.

Retrait d'une demande dans le cas où aucun élément de preuve de fond n'a été accepté

(2) Dans le cas où aucun élément de preuve de fond n'a été accepté dans le cadre de l'affaire, toute partie peut retirer sa demande d'asile, sa demande d'annulation ou sa demande de constat de perte d'asile en avisant la Section soit oralement lors d'une procédure, soit par écrit.

Retrait d'une demande dans le cas où des éléments de preuve de fond ont été acceptés

(3) Dans le cas où des éléments de preuve de fond ont été acceptés dans le cadre de l'affaire, la partie qui veut retirer sa demande d'asile, sa demande d'annulation ou sa demande de constat de perte d'asile en fait la demande à la Section selon la règle 44.

RÉTABLISSEMENT D'UNE DEMANDE

Demande de rétablissement d'une demande d'asile retirée

53. (1) Toute personne peut demander à la Section de rétablir la demande d'asile qu'elle a faite et ensuite retirée.

Forme et contenu de la demande

(2) La personne fait sa demande selon la règle 44; elle y indique ses coordonnées et transmet une copie de la demande au ministre.

Éléments à considérer

(3) La Section accueille la demande soit sur preuve du manquement à un principe de justice naturelle, soit s'il est par ailleurs dans l'intérêt de la justice de le faire.

Demande de rétablissement d'une

52. (1)Withdrawal of a claim, or of an Application to Vacate Refugee Protection or an Application to Cease Refugee Protection, is an abuse of process if withdrawal would likely have a negative effect on the integrity of the Division. If no substantive evidence has been accepted in the proceedings, withdrawal is not an abuse of process. (2) If no substantive evidence has been accepted in the proceedings, a party may withdraw the party's claim or Application to Vacate Refugee Protection or Application to Cease Refugee Protection by notifying the Division orally at a proceeding or in writing. (3) If substantive evidence has been accepted in the proceedings, a party who wants to withdraw the party's claim or Application to Vacate Refugee Protection or Application to Cease Refugee Protection must make an application to the Division under rule 44. 53. (1) A person may apply to the Division to reinstate a claim that was made by that person and withdrawn. (2) The person must follow rule 44, include their contact information in the application and provide a copy of the application to the Minister. (3) The Division must allow the application if it is established that there was a failure to observe a principle of natural justice or if it is otherwise in the interests of justice to allow the application.		52. (1) Il y a abus de procédure si le retrait d'une demande d'asile, d'une demande d'annulation ou d'une demande de constat de perte d'asile aurait vraisemblablement un effet néfaste sur l'intégrité de la Section. Il n'y a pas abus de procédure si aucun élément de preuve de fond n'a été accepté dans le cadre de l'affaire. (2) Dans le cas où aucun élément de preuve de fond n'a été accepté dans le cadre de l'affaire, toute partie peut retirer sa demande d'asile, sa demande d'annulation ou sa demande de constat de perte d'asile en avisant la Section soit oralement lors d'une procédure, soit par écrit. (3) Dans le cas où des éléments de preuve de fond ont été acceptés dans le cadre de l'affaire, la partie qui veut retirer sa demande d'asile, sa demande d'annulation ou sa demande de constat de perte d'asile en fait la demande à la Section selon la règle 44. 53. (1) Toute personne peut demander à la Section de rétablir la demande d'asile qu'elle a faite et ensuite retirée. (2) La personne fait sa demande selon la règle 44; elle y indique ses coordonnées et transmet une copie de la demande au ministre. (3) La Section accueille la demande soit sur preuve du manquement à un principe de justice naturelle, soit s'il est par ailleurs dans l'intérêt de la justice de le faire.

[7]                This is an application for judicial review not of a decision, but of a notification issued by the registrar, who simply relayed the voluntary statements of the female applicant. In a very similar case, Mr. Justice Beaudry stated:

In this case, I am not faced with a determination by the CRDD (Convention Refugee Determination Division), made pursuant to s. 69.1(6) of the Act, that the claims were abandoned. In fact, I am dealing with the reliance by the CRDD upon statements freely made to them by the applicants, indicating that they wished to withdraw their claims for refugee status.

Rule 33(1) permits a claimant to withdraw its claim either orally at the hearing or by notice in writing filed at the registry. When that right is exercised, subsection (2) of this Rule provides that the registrar of the CRDD must notify the Minister of the decision. The wording "shall notify" contained in Rule 33(2) indicates that the CRDD registrar is not making a discretionary decision when he or she notifies the Minister of the withdrawal of a claim; the registrar is bound to do so.

Furthermore, in exercising the duty imposed upon him or her in Rule 33(2), the registrar is acting as little more than a messenger to the Minister.

...

Rule 33 does not violate the rights of applicants to procedural fairness. Applicants choose to bring a premature end to proceedings when they exercise the right to withdraw their claims. They ought to reasonably understand that one of the consequences of this act is that a hearing to determine the merits of their claim is no longer necessary, since their claims are no longer pending. They made the conscious choice to take that route.

The applicants complained in their affidavits that they were not contacted in order to confirm that they were withdrawing their claims. Such a complaint is not justified. As discussed above, the CRDD is entitled to rely on documents which it receives, and is entitled to presume that they have been properly executed. In addition, the abandonment hearings to which applicants have a right under s. 69.1(6) of the Act are not necessary in the case of a withdrawal. The applicant who is found by the CRDD to have abandoned a claim requires, as a matter of procedural fairness, the right to be heard by the body that is making that decision with regard to his or her claim. In the case of a withdrawal, the applicant is the one who makes the decision and exercises his right to put an end to his claim. (Arndorfer v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. No 1659) [at paragraph 52 et seq.]

(Refers to the old Rules, equivalent to those currently in effect.)

[8]                The female applicant cannot claim that she signed the Notice of Withdrawal without realizing the consequences of her actions. The Notice of Withdrawal signed by the female applicant ends with an interpreter's declaration, which reads as follows:

[TRANSLATION] I, CORTACANS CONCEPCION, hereby attest that I have fully translated the entire contents of this Notice for the applicant, from French to SPANISH. The applicant has assured me that he has understood the contents of the Notice as it was translated.

[9]                Accordingly, I find no irregularities in the steps taken by the IRB registrar. On the contrary, he acted appropriately, given the requirements of subsection 52(2). Moreover, although this Court has jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that the issue of whether the withdrawal of the claims of Maria Del Rosar Multini Amorin and her son is valid should normally be decided by the IRB, further to a motion to reinstate their claims under subsection 53(1) of the Rules.

                                                                       ORDER

The application for judicial review is dismissed.

"Rouleau J."

JUDGE                      

Certified true translation

Magda Hentel

                                                             FEDERAL COURT

                                                     SOLICITORS OF RECORD

                                                                             

DOCKET:                                         IMM-2055-04              

STYLE OF CAUSE:                       MARIA DES ROSAR MULTINI AMORIN

AUGUSTIN MULTINI MULTINI

v. M.C.I.

PLACE OF HEARING:                  Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                     May 3, 2005

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:      The Honourable Mr. Justice Rouleau

DATED:                                            May 16, 2005

APPEARANCES:                          

Anthony Karkar                                 FOR THE APPLICANTS

Thi My Dung Tran                             FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Anthony Karkar                                 FOR THE APPLICANTS

4 Notre Dame Street East

Suite 501

Montréal, Quebec

H2Y 1B7

Justice Canada                                FOR THE RESPONDENT

Guy Favreau Complex

200 René Lévesque Blvd. West

East Tower, 5th Floor

Montréal, Quebec

H2Z 1X4