Date: 20041102
Docket: IMM-9934-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1542
BETWEEN:
SERGEY SAHAKYAN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HARRINGTON J.
[1] When you are told to get out of Canada, you better get going! Sergey Sahakyan was a little slow in leaving Canada after his refugee claim was turned down. Because he should have left three months earlier, he may never get back in, even though he now holds the right papers.
[2] He has been selected for permanent residence by Québec, pursuant to a Federal- Provincial agreement. Had he left Canada when he should, he would be entitled to be here as of right. Now a Canadian visa officer will not let him back in. This is a judicial review of that decision.
THE FACTS
[3] Mr. Sahakyan is a citizen of Armenia. He came to Canada in November 1998 on a visitor's visa in order to attend his niece's wedding, a wedding which never took place.
[4] Within a week of arrival he claimed Convention refugee status. In July 1999, the Immigration and Refugee Board held that he was not a Convention refugee. The Board doubted that he had a subjective fear of persecution but in any event held that the harassment of which he complained, organized by a work colleague, was not a ground of persecution recognized by the United Nations Convention.
[5] His application for leave and for a judicial review of that decision was turned down by this Court.
[6] The removal order against him became executory thereafter. He should have left Canada voluntarily on or about 26 March 2000.
[7] He failed to do so, and as a result his departure order became a deportation order, a distinction of considerable significance.
[8] He left Canada of his own accord on 23 June 2000, but because of the delay his departure is deemed to be an enforced departure. According to section 52(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c.27:
|
If a removal order has been enforced, the foreign national shall not return to Canada, unless authorized by an officer or in other prescribed circumstances.
|
L'exécution de la mesure de renvoi emporte interdiction de revenir au Canada, sauf autorisation de l'agent ou dans les autres cas prévus par règlement.
|
[9] Thereafter, he was selected for permanent residence by Québec. Section 9 of the Act provides that Mr. Sahakyan is to be granted permanent resident status "unless inadmissible under this Act".
[10] Mr. Sahakyan made his application abroad, from Mexico City. In the course of his dealings with the Canadian Embassy, he was sent a form letter which pointed out that a deported person could only return to Canada with the Minister's authorization. He was called upon to present a letter in which he was to explain in detail the reasons why it was in Canada's national interest to give that authorization. This is what he said:
Please accept this letter as my family's application for permanent residence in Canada. My wife, Sahakyan Tamara, and I, Sahakyan Sergey, have completed the immigration requirements for Canadian residence status, that is confirming our work experiences.
We have guaranteed jobs that await us in Montreal and we trust that as soon as we have sufficient language skills we will find jobs of our specialization and that will benefit Canadian society.
Presently we are learning the English language, the culture and the history of Canada as well as the French language so that we become well-rounded citizens of this country and feel part of the society.
We plan to repay Canada, with hard work and continue to do so in this compassionate and great country. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to fulfil our goals and our dreams to become citizens and taxpayers in a country where there are no limits set for honest and hard working people.
[11] There was at least one further exchange of note by way of a telephone conversation. It was suggested that Mr. Sahakyan had not paid for his plane ticket out of Canada, leaving the government to pay for his passage. He strenuously denied this allegation which was in an e-mail sent by the Citizenship and Immigration office in Montreal to the Canadian Embassy in Mexico City.
[12] The officer delegated by the Minister to make the decision was the First Secretary (Immigration) at the Embassy in Mexico City. He was the program manager at the Immigration section of the Embassy. His duties included the assessment, evaluation and processing of applications for permanent residence in Canada.
[13] He decided not to grant the necessary authorization. I consider it important to set out his reasons in full:
The applicant has provided a half page submission dated 07 July 2003, detailing the reasons that he should be authorized to return to Canada which include jobs waiting in Montreal for the applicant and spouse, as well as sufficient language skills to find jobs of their specialization that will benefit Canadian society. They are presently learning the English and French languages, so that they will become well rounded citizens. They intend to repay Canada with hard work in a country where there are no limits set for honest and hard working people.
In balancing considerations of the applicant and sponsor with Canada's interest regarding the enforcement and integrity aspects of the Act and Regs, I have considered various factors which lead me to conclude that it is not in the national interest to authorize this return. I have taken into account the objectives of IRPA as well as recognizing the value of maintaining the integrity of the Immigration program within Canadian society and recognizing the mutual obligations of potential immigrants and Canadian society. There is little evidence of the applicant showing good faith in complying with immigration requirements during his 1 ½ year stay in Canada while he pursued a refugee claim. His decision to remain until June 2002[sic]* was past the required date of departure and the present circumstances of requiring authority to return to Canada has arisen as a result of the applicant's decisions and actions.
In my opinion, this applicant has demonstrated a clear and determined effort to remain in Canada by any means. I am satisfied that this applicant provided incorrect information in his application for a visitor visa to travel to Canada, given the short time that passed between the date of visa application and the date of his refugee claim in Canada. The failure of this refugee claim satisfies me that the claim was without merit and was likely economically motivated. I have also taken into consideration that the applicant's present ability to meet selection requirements for Quebec but am concerned that this eligibility was derived as a result of his remaining in Canada past the effective date of his departure order. The applicant's failure to pay for his own removal despite being gainfully employed from Aug1999 to Jun2000 and the fact that he would have produced evidence of a return ticket and funds on his visa application in Nov1998 are factors which call into question the applicant's intent to comply with immigration requirements.
I have taken into consideration that the [sic] both the applicant and spouse have siblings in Canada, however, I am not persuaded that these family connections would constitute a strong family reasons [sic] to authorize the applicant's return to Canada.
[* subsequently corrected to read June 2000.]
ISSUES
[14] Counsel for Mr. Sahakyan and the Minister, who are both very experienced in these matters, have been unable to find any case law which circumscribes the authorization required by section 52 of the Act, or its predecessor under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, as amended. As the decision to grant or not to grant authorization is discretionary by nature, we have to take into account the standard of deference accorded to the Minister's officer given the purpose of the Act. Because there was no dialogue between the officer and Mr. Sahakyan as to the reasons why he was late in leaving Canada and because the officer gave him no chance to respond to his concern that he did not come to Canada with "clean hands", the fairness of his hearing is also in issue. Even if I were to find that the decision is otherwise reviewable, the Minister submits that a judicial review is pointless since Mr. Sahakyan has the right at any time to make a fresh application. He does not need an order of this Court. He could in that fresh application address the reasons why he was first refused and attempt to disabuse the officer of his concerns.
[15] These issues are not water tight compartments. They are jumbled together. However, to give structure to my reasons I will begin with the Act, followed in turn by the rules of natural justice, the standard of review of this administrative decision, and the available remedy.
THE IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE PROTECTION ACT
[16] The Supreme Court has laid down very clear directions as to how a statute should be interpreted. Because we are dealing with both the statute, and regulations thereunder, I consider the following passage from the reasons of Madam Justice Deschamps in 2004 SCC 60">Glykis v. Hydro-Québec, 2004 SCC 60, [2004] S.C.J. No. 56, to be particularly helpful:.
5. The approach to statutory interpretation is well-known (Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559, 2002 SCC 42">2002 SCC 42). A statutory provision must be read in its entire context, taking into consideration not only the ordinary and grammatical sense of the words, but also the scheme and object of the statute, and the intention of the legislature. This approach to statutory interpretation must also be followed, with necessary adaptations, in interpreting regulations.
[17] The Act is broken down into five parts. The two which are pertinent to this case are Part 1 "Immigration to Canada" and Part 2 "Refugee Protection". The objectives of the Act are set out in section 3, appended hereto. Section 3(1) deals with immigration and section 3(2) deals with refugees. With respect to refugees, in essence the objective of the Act is to offer safe haven for persons with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, as well as to those at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. The procedures relating thereto are to be fair and efficient and designed to "maintain the integrity of the Canadian refugee protection system..."
[18] The objectives with respect to immigration are to permit Canada to pursue the social, cultural and economic benefits of immigration, to enrich and strengthen our social and cultural fabric, to see that families are reunited here and to promote the successful integration of permanent residents into Canada.
[19] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration may enter into agreements with the government of any province with respect to immigration. There is such an agreement with Québec. Mr. Sahakyan meets Québec's selection criteria and, as mentioned above, must be granted permanent resident status, unless inadmissible under the Act.
[20] Part 13 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, commencing at section 223, deals with removal orders. There are three types: departure orders, exclusion orders and deportation orders. A putative refugee, whose claim was not accepted, is subject to a departure order. Under Rule 224, a foreign national subject to an enforced departure order does not need to obtain authorization under section 52(1) of the Act in order to return to Canada. Thus, despite the officer's concerns about Mr. Sahakyan's motives, he could not have prevented Mr. Sahakyan return had he left Canada in March rather then in June. Since Mr. Sahakyan did not leave Canada within 30 days after the departure order became enforceable, it became a deportation order and under section 226 of the Regulations he cannot return except with written authorization.
[21] As a result of his being deported, Mr. Sahakyan fell into bad company. Deportation orders cover people who are inadmissible on various grounds, including national security, violation of human or international rights and serious criminality.
[22] Mr. Sahakyan is not a security risk, has no criminal record and is not accused of violating human or international rights. All he is is an unsuccessful refugee claimant. No matter how he got here, no matter how he may have pitched his chance of success, no matter that he wanted to join his brother, no matter his economic motives, he had the right under Part 2 of the Act to seek refugee protection in Canada. As the Regulations make clear, the fact that his application was not successful has no bearing on his right to seek permanent residence as an immigrant. All he did was run afoul of the timing requirements governing his departure from Canada, and yet he was not asked the reasons for that delay.
[23] In the final resort, it falls upon the courts, not the Minister or his officers, to construe the Act. The officer's focus on matters which would not have been relevant had Mr. Sahakyan left in time, shows that he misconstrued the Act. This is not to say that Mr. Sahakyan's Canadian history is not relevant. What it does mean is that that history must be relevant to his late departure. The centrepiece of the officer's concern had to be the reasons why Mr. Sahakyan left in June, rather than in March.
NATURAL JUSTICE - WAS THE HEARING FAIR?
[24] I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Sahakyan was not given a fair hearing. I am not saying he was entitled to an interview. What I am saying is he should have been given an opportunity to address the officer's concerns. Since the officer knew Mr. Sahakyan had been deemed deported, one can hardly suppose that the question "why is it in Canada's national interest to allow you to return?" was an invitation to address his late departure. This was not an application to remain in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in which the nature of the information to be furnished is well established (Owusu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] 2 F.C.R. 635 (FCA)).
[25] "Audi alteram partem" is at the heart of natural justice. It means that Mr. Sahakyan had the right to be heard, to know the case he had to meet and to have the opportunity to respond to that case. The officer had a legitimate concern in his late departure. Even though Citizenship and Immigration, Montreal, had informed him it had no objection to Mr. Sahakyan's returning to Canada, the decision was his to make. He would have been derelict in his duty if he ignored the late departure. However, his duty was to enquire, a duty he did not discharge.
[26] Of the many cases dealing with this issue, I refer particularly to two: Lazarov v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1973] F.C. 927 (FCA), which was decided before the Charter and before the Supreme Court developed its pragmatic and functional approach to judicial review of the decisions of administrative tribunals, and Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3.
[27] In Lazarov, the Secretary of State refused to grant the applicant a certificate of citizenship although the Citizenship Court had found him a fit and proper person. The Secretary referred to a confidential report issued by the RCMP but did not disclose its contents. That decision was set aside and referred back for reconsideration on the basis of the audi alteram partem rule. Thurlow J., as he then was, said at paragraph 25:
In my opinion therefore the rule audi alteram partem applies whenever the Minister proposes to exercise his discretion to refuse an application on the basis of facts pertaining to the particular applicant or his application and where he has not already had an opportunity in the course of the proceedings before the Citizenship Court he must be afforded a fair opportunity in one way or another of stating his position with respect to any matters which in the absence of refutation or explanation would lead to the rejection of his application.
[28] Suresh was a Convention refugee against whom deportation proceedings were instituted on security grounds. The Minister had relied on an Immigration officer's memorandum, a memorandum which had not been given to Mr. Suresh. All nine members of the Supreme Court said this at page 65:
122. ... Furthermore, fundamental justice requires that an opportunity be provided to respond to the case presented to the Minister. While the Minister accepted written submissions from the appellant in this case, in the absence of access to the material she was receiving from her staff and on which she based much of her decision, Suresh and his counsel had no knowledge of which factors they specifically needed to address, nor any chance to correct any factual inaccuracies or mischaracterizations. Fundamental justice requires that written submissions be accepted from the subject of the order after the subject has been provided with an opportunity to examine the material being used against him or her. The Minister must then consider these submissions along with the submissions made by the Minister's staff.
123. Not only must the refugee be informed of the case to be met, the refugee must also be given an opportunity to challenge the information of the Minister where issues as to its validity arise...
[29] Had Mr. Sahakyan been given an opportunity to explain the delay he would have said, as he said before this Court, that he was applying to the Québec Delegate for Immigration status through Mexico, had to give up his Armenian passport in order to get a Mexican visa, and could not leave Canada before the passport was returned to him.
[30] The hearing was also unfair in that he was not given an opportunity to prove, as he always maintained, that he paid for his own plane ticket on leaving Canada. The Minister now concedes that the information given to the Embassy in Mexico City was wrong. It is admitted that Mr. Sahakyan paid his own way. There are occasions, rare I should think, where it is open to the Court to conclude that the failure to give a fair hearing was not material to the result reached (Mobil Oil Canada Ltd. v. Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 202). However, this is not such a case as the officer listed a number of factors he considered important, and failed to consider the factor of prime importance, the reason for the late departure.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[31] The duty to be fair is not covered by the pragmatic and functional approach to judicial review (Mount Sinai Hospital Centre v. Québec (Minister of Health and Social Services), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 281, per Binnie J., at 297; Canadian Union of Public Employees (C.U.P.E.) v. Ontario (Minister of Labour), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 539.). As stated by Le Dain J. in Cardinal v. Director of Kent Institution, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643 at p. 653:
The court has affirmed that there is, a general common law principle, a duty of procedural fairness lying on every public authority making an administrative decision which is not of a legislative nature and which affects the rights, privileges or interests of an individual...
[32] In Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226, the Supreme Court noted that the pragmatic and functional approach to judicial review took four considerations into account: 1 - the presence of a privative clause or right of appeal; 2 - the relative expertise of the tribunal compared to that of the reviewing court; 3 - the purposes of the legislation; and 4 - the nature of the question be it law, fact, or mixed law and fact. Section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act and section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act give a right of judicial review, in this case with leave. It seems to me that the Act deals with the interests of various constituencies, which leads to considerable deference, as does the relative expertise of an officer charged with administering our Immigration policies, an expertise which this Court does not have.
[33] The exercise of discretion is "to be based upon a weighing of considerations pertinent to the object of the [statute's] administration" ([1959] S.C.R. 121">Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, per Rand J. at page 140, as cited by Binnie J. in C.U.P.E., supra, at page 588.
[34] The officer's interpretation of the Act is a question of law. The correctness standard applies. The exercise of his discretion is subject to the reasonableness simpliciter standard of review. I see no reason why a different standard should apply under section 52 of the Act (Ha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2004] 3 F.C.R. 195 (permanent resident); Yaghoubian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2003] F.C.J. 806 (permanent resident); Wang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2001] F.C.J. 1940 (student visa)). The officer misinterpreted the law and exercised his discretion unreasonably.
[35] However, even on a patently unreasonableness standard, deference is not owed as he failed "to consider and weigh implied limitations and/or patently relevant factors..." (Binnie J., in C.U.P.E., supra, at page 619 referring to Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3.). The officer failed to weigh a patently relevant factor, the reason for Mr. Sahakyan's late departure, and failed to consider limitations, which were the reasons why Mr. Sahakyan first came to Canada, and the details of his sojourn here.
[36] Before leaving this point, I wish to add that the officer did not explain what he meant in saying "there is little evidence of the applicant showing good faith in complying with immigration requirements during his one-and-a-half-year stay in Canada while he pursued a refugee claim". He worked, he took French classes, he never tried to deny his true identity and he never went into hiding. There is no evidence that he met Québec criteria because he stayed three extra months. There was no obligation that he take French classes in Canada. Even if he had been on the dole and done nothing to integrate into Canadian society, but left on time, there was nothing the officer could have done about it.
REMEDY
[37] The Minister suggests that there is no real point to a judicial review since Mr. Sahakyan is at liberty at any time to file a fresh application. Counsel for Mr. Sahakyan counters that with no direction from the Court there is no guarantee that the officer will delve into the reasons for the late departure.
[38] Permanent residence, as does citizenship, carries with it its privileges, one being the right to leave Canada in the knowledge that one is entitled to return, provided of course residency requirements are maintained.
[39] In my opinion, the fact that Mr. Sahakyan can make a fresh application does not take this case out of the realm of judicial review. I refer back to Thurlow J.'s tour de force in Lazarov, supra. He said at paragraph 23:
...it is true that the applicant can apply again after two years, but the status of citizenship carries with it rights and advantages and to refuse the application of a person to whom it would otherwise be granted on the basis of matters of which he is not apprised and which he is given no opportunity to dispute is shocking to one's sense of justice, even though he may lawfully apply again after a comparatively short time. It suggests that the applicant is not being fairly dealt with and that fairness demands that he at least be afforded an opportunity to state his position on them.
[40] And to again quote from Binnie J. in C.U.P.E., supra, at page 589:
In the language of Lord Reid in Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, [1968] A.C. 997 (H.L.), at p. 1030:
... if the Minister, by reason of his having misconstrued the Act or for any other reason, so uses his discretion as to thwart or run counter to the policy and objects of the Act, then our law would be very defective if persons aggrieved were not entitled to the protection of the court. [Emphasis added.]
Lord Reid added that "the policy and objects of the Act must be determined by construing the Act as a whole and construction is always a matter of law for the court" (p. 1030).
[41] I would set aside the decision of the officer and refer the matter back for redetermination before another officer. Mr. Sahakyan must be afforded an opportunity to state his position on all points of concern.
[42] It was agreed that I circulate these reasons before issuing my order as, pursuant to section 74 of the Act, an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal lies only if I certify that there is a serious question of general importance involved, and state that question. I give the parties until 8 November 2004 to submit questions for certification. If they cannot agree, each may pose questions separately, in which case each will be given until 12 November 2004 to respond to the other.
"Sean Harrington"
Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
November 2, 2004
APPENDIX
|
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
3. (1) The objectives of this Act with respect to immigration are
(a) to permit Canada to pursue the maximum social, cultural and economic benefits of immigration;
(b) to enrich and strengthen the social and cultural fabric of Canadian society, while respecting the federal, bilingual and multicultural character of Canada;
(b.1) to support and assist the development of minority official languages communities in Canada;
(c) to support the development of a strong and prosperous Canadian economy, in which the benefits of immigration are shared across all regions of Canada;
(d) to see that families are reunited in Canada;
(e) to promote the successful integration of permanent residents into Canada, while recognizing that integration involves mutual obligations for new immigrants and Canadian society;
(f) to support, by means of consistent standards and prompt processing, the attainment of immigration goals established by the Government of Canada in consultation with the provinces;
(g) to facilitate the entry of visitors, students and temporary workers for purposes such as trade, commerce, tourism, international understanding and cultural, educational and scientific activities;
(h) to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian society;
|
Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés
3. (1) En matière d'immigration, la présente loi a pour objet_:
a) de permettre au Canada de retirer de l'immigration le maximum d'avantages sociaux, culturels et économiques;
b) d'enrichir et de renforcer le tissu social et culturel du Canada dans le respect de son caractère fédéral, bilingue et multiculturel;
b.1) de favoriser le développement des collectivités de langues officielles minoritaires au Canada;
c) de favoriser le développement économique et la prospérité du Canada et de faire en sorte que toutes les régions puissent bénéficier des avantages économiques découlant de l'immigration;
d) de veiller à la réunification des familles au Canada;
e) de promouvoir l'intégration des résidents permanents au Canada, compte tenu du fait que cette intégration suppose des obligations pour les nouveaux arrivants et pour la société canadienne;
f) d'atteindre, par la prise de normes uniformes et l'application d'un traitement efficace, les objectifs fixés pour l'immigration par le gouvernement fédéral après consultation des provinces;
g) de faciliter l'entrée des visiteurs, étudiants et travailleurs temporaires qui viennent au Canada dans le cadre d'activités commerciales, touristiques, culturelles, éducatives, scientifiques ou autres, ou pour favoriser la bonne entente à l'échelle internationale;
h) de protéger la santé des Canadiens et de garantir leur sécurité;
|
|
(i) to promote international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks; and
(j) to work in cooperation with the provinces to secure better recognition of the foreign credentials of permanent residents and their more rapid integration into society.
(2) The objectives of this Act with respect to refugees are
(a) to recognize that the refugee program is in the first instance about saving lives and offering protection to the displaced and persecuted;
(b) to fulfil Canada's international legal obligations with respect to refugees and affirm Canada's commitment to international efforts to provide assistance to those in need of resettlement;
(c) to grant, as a fundamental expression of Canada's humanitarian ideals, fair consideration to those who come to Canada claiming persecution;
(d) to offer safe haven to persons with a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group, as well as those at risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment;
(e) to establish fair and efficient procedures that will maintain the integrity of the Canadian refugee protection system, while upholding Canada's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all human beings;
(f) to support the self-sufficiency and the social and economic well-being of refugees by facilitating reunification with their family members in Canada;
(g) to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian society; and
|
i) de promouvoir, à l'échelle internationale, la justice et la sécurité par le respect des droits de la personne et l'interdiction de territoire aux personnes qui sont des criminels ou constituent un danger pour la sécurité;
j) de veiller, de concert avec les provinces, à aider les résidents permanents à mieux faire reconnaître leurs titres de compétence et à s'intégrer plus rapidement à la société.
(2) S'agissant des réfugiés, la présente loi a pour objet_:
a) de reconnaître que le programme pour les réfugiés vise avant tout à sauver des vies et à protéger les personnes de la persécution;
b) de remplir les obligations en droit international du Canada relatives aux réfugiés et aux personnes déplacées et d'affirmer la volonté du Canada de participer aux efforts de la communauté internationale pour venir en aide aux personnes qui doivent se réinstaller;
c) de faire bénéficier ceux qui fuient la persécution d'une procédure équitable reflétant les idéaux humanitaires du Canada;
d) d'offrir l'asile à ceux qui craignent avec raison d'être persécutés du fait de leur race, leur religion, leur nationalité, leurs opinions politiques, leur appartenance à un groupe social en particulier, ainsi qu'à ceux qui risquent la torture ou des traitements ou peines cruels et inusités;
e) de mettre en place une procédure équitable et efficace qui soit respectueuse, d'une part, de l'intégrité du processus canadien d'asile et, d'autre part, des droits et des libertés fondamentales reconnus à tout être humain;
f) d'encourager l'autonomie et le bien-être socioéconomique des réfugiés en facilitant la réunification de leurs familles au Canada;
g) de protéger la santé des Canadiens et de garantir leur sécurité;
|
|
(h) to promote international justice and security by denying access to Canadian territory to persons, including refugee claimants, who are security risks or serious criminals.
(3) This Act is to be construed and applied in a manner that
(a) furthers the domestic and international interests of Canada;
(b) promotes accountability and transparency by enhancing public awareness of immigration and refugee programs;
(c) facilitates cooperation between the Government of Canada, provincial governments, foreign states, international organizations and non-governmental organizations;
(d) ensures that decisions taken under this Act are consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including its principles of equality and freedom from discrimination and of the equality of English and French as the official languages of Canada;
(e) supports the commitment of the Government of Canada to enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada; and
(f) complies with international human rights instruments to which Canada is signatory.
|
h) de promouvoir, à l'échelle internationale, la sécurité et la justice par l'interdiction du territoire aux personnes et demandeurs d'asile qui sont de grands criminels ou constituent un danger pour la sécurité.
(3) L'interprétation et la mise en oeuvre de la présente loi doivent avoir pour effet_:
a) de promouvoir les intérêts du Canada sur les plans intérieur et international;
b) d'encourager la responsabilisation et la transparence par une meilleure connaissance des programmes d'immigration et de ceux pour les réfugiés;
c) de faciliter la coopération entre le gouvernement fédéral, les gouvernements provinciaux, les États étrangers, les organisations internationales et les organismes non gouvernementaux;
d) d'assurer que les décisions prises en vertu de la présente loi sont conformes à la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, notamment en ce qui touche les principes, d'une part, d'égalité et de protection contre la discrimination et, d'autre part, d'égalité du français et de l'anglais à titre de langues officielles du Canada;
e) de soutenir l'engagement du gouvernement du Canada à favoriser l'épanouissement des minorités francophones et anglophones du Canada;
f) de se conformer aux instruments internationaux portant sur les droits de l'homme don't le Canada est signataire.
|
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-9934-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: SERGEY SAHAKYAN
AND
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTREAL, QUÉBEC
DATE OF HEARING: OCTOBER 7, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER : HARRINGTON J.
DATED: NOVEMBER 2, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Michel Le Brun FOR APPLICANT
Sébastien Da Sylva FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michel Le Brun FOR APPLICANT
Montreal, Québec
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montreal, Québec
Email this Content