Ramnauth v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 233

Date: 2004-02-16

Docket: IMM-4519-03

Citation: 2004 FC 233

Ottawa, Ontario, this 16^th day of February 2004

Present:           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY                          

BETWEEN:

                                                 RAMNAUTH, FRANCIS ANTHONY

                                                  RAMNAUTH, RAWATTIE ALANA

                                                 RAMNAUTH, SHANIA ANASTACIA

                                                    RAMNAUTH, ALLAN ANTONIO

                                                 RAMNAUTH, LUCINDA RAFEENA

                                               RAMNAUTH, REYNALDO ANTONIO

                                           RAMNAUTH, ROSETTA SUSIANNA ROSE

                                                                                                                                                      Applicants

                                                                                 and

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                      REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

[1]                 Mr. Francis Ramnauth and Mr. Allan Ramnauth have both claimed refugee status in Canada on the grounds that they were threatened, assaulted and robbed by political adversaries in Guyana. Their claims were joined, along with those of their wives and children, before a panel of the Immigration and Refugee Board. When the Board joined the claims it said that "decisions will be made independently on each claim".

[2]                 In the end, the Board dismissed both claims in a single set of reasons. The applicants argue that the Board failed to honour its undertaking to decide their claims separately, breached principles of natural justice and failed to give adequate reasons. They request, by way of this application for judicial review, a new hearing before a different panel of the Board.

[3]                 I agree that the Board erred and will grant their request.

[4]                 At the hearing before me, counsel noted that the tribunal record was incomplete. It was agreed that I would hear the parties on the issues mentioned above and, if it were necessary, schedule another hearing on the remaining issues. In light of my conclusion, it is unnecessary to address those other issues.

[5]                 In my view, the Board did not breach an undertaking or violate principles of natural justice by dealing with Francis and Allan Ramnauth's claims together in one set of reasons. However, in doing so, the Board failed to address some important pieces of evidence relating to each individual claim.

[6]                 In respect of some facts, the two claims were very similar: Both claimants drove taxis and earned a good income; both were assaulted and robbed in the course of their work; and both received telephone threats from political opponents. Neither went to the police. The Board concluded that the claimants were simply "targets of opportunity for robbers who were aware that taxi drivers frequently carry cash in large amounts".

[7]                 The Board arrived at its decision solely on the basis of circumstances that were common to both claims. It did not consider any facts that were peculiar to each of them. Accordingly, in respect of Allan Ramnauth, the Board did not mention that:

·            he used his vehicle to transport political associates to meetings and party events;

·            his car was vandalized, his tires slashed and a threatening note was left on his vehicle after attending a political rally;

·            he had been threatened after attending the funeral of a political ally;

·            one of the assaults required him to receive two weeks of medical treatment.

[8]                 In respect of Francis Ramnauth, the Board did not mention that:

·            he used to hold political meetings at his home, but ceased after receiving numerous threats;

·            he feared making a police report after one assault because it occurred in an area populated by his political opponents;

·            generally, he was afraid of the police.

[9]                 Certainly, the Board can and often must deal with multiple claimants in a single decision (Rule 49(1), of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2002-228 (see Annex)). However, the reasons must disclose the basis on which the Board made its decision in respect of each claimant. The question is whether "the fact that the claims were joined has caused an injustice to either of the joined claims": Zewedu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1369 (QL) (T.D.), at para. 9. There is no injustice done when the Board fails to analyze a claim that is dependent on the success of a joined claim: Tofan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1379 (QL) (T.D.); Boros v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. No. 892 (QL) (T.D.). However, if a claim raises distinct issues, it must be addressed separately: Retnem v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1991] F.C. J. No. 428 (QL) (C.A.); Csonka v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1294 (QL) (T.D.).

[10]            Here, by referring only to the common elements in the two main claims before it, the Board failed to analyze evidence that was unique and significant in each of them. Perhaps it did not find that evidence credible. If so, it had a duty to provide clear reasons why it did not believe it.

[11]            Counsel for the respondent argued that any omissions in the reasons were harmless because the Board concluded that the claimants were victims of ordinary criminal acts. In that context, the further details of each claimant's experiences were irrelevant. In my view, however, the Board's failure to make reference to the particulars of the claimants' allegations renders its conclusion suspect.

[12]            Accordingly, this application for judicial review is allowed. The matter is referred back to the Board for reconsideration by a different panel.

[13]            Counsel for the applicants proposed a number of questions for certification. However, in light of the manner in which I have decided this application for judicial review, it is not appropriate to certify them.

                                                                        JUDGMENT

THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:

1.          The application for judicial review is allowed. The matter is referred back to the Board for reconsideration by a different panel;

2.          No questions of general importance are stated.

                                                                                                                                      "James W. O'Reilly"       

                                                                                                                                                               Judge                   

                                                                              Annex

                                                                 FEDERAL COURT

                                                         SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                             IMM-4519-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           RAMNAUTH, FRANCIS ANTHONY, RAMNAUTH, RAWATTIE ALANA; RAMNAUTH, SHANIA ANASTACIA; RAMNAUTH, ALLAN ANTONIO;RAMNAUTH, LUCINDA RAFEENA; RAMNAUTH, REYNALDO ANTONIO; RAMNAUTH, ROSETTA SUSIANNA ROSE v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                     Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                       February 5, 2004

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

AND JUDGMENT BY:                     The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly

DATED:                                                February 16, 2004

APPEARANCES BY:

Jacques Despatis                                                                            FOR THE APPLICANTS

Catherine A. Lawrence                                                                  FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

JACQUES DESPATIS

Ottawa, Ontario                                                                             FOR THE APPLICANTS

MORRIS ROSENBERG

Deputy Attorney General of Canada     FOR THE RESPONDENT