Kali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1080

Email this Content

Citations
2002 FCT 1080

Case tabs

Text of decision

Date: 20021016

Docket: IMM-2881-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1080

Ottawa, Ontario, October 16, 2002

Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer

BETWEEN:

DELLA CSILLA KALI

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1] This is an application for judicial review of the decision of C. Simmie, member of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Adjudication Division), dated May 22^nd, 2001, of which the applicant was notified and was orally communicated in IRB file #3222-0356.

[2] The applicant is employed as an exotic dancer. She arrived in Canada from Romania, with a valid work permit, on October 15^th, 1995. This permit was subsequently and consistently extended, without interruption, up to February 1^st, 2001, with the last extension running from March 24^th, 2000, to February 1^st, 2001.

[3] On the applicant's last extension, the conditions of her work permit were stated as follows:

Employer: Jilly's Adult Lounge

Occupation: Buskers

Employment Location: Toronto

Terms & Conditions

1. Prohibited from attending any educational institution and taking any academic, professional or vocational training course. 2. Not authorized to work in any occupation other than stated. 3. Not authorized to work for any employer other than stated. 4. Not authorized to work in any location other than stated. 5. Must leave Canada by 01 Feb. 2001

Applicant's Application Record at 17.

[4] In the applicant's previous employment authorization, from February 1999 to January 2000, her employer was the "Brass Rail", another lounge.

[5] During the course of her employment with "Jilly's Adult Lounge", the applicant was sent by the manager to go dance, on several occasions, to the "Brass Rail".

[6] On or about September 14^th, 2000, the "Brass Rail" was raided by a joint police-immigration task force.

[7] The applicant was detained and a section 27 report was issued. The report alleged that, contrary to paragraph 27(2)(b) of the Immigration Act, R.C.S. 1985, c. I-2 (the Act), and subsection 18(2) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172 (the Regulations), the applicant breached the terms of her work conditions, namely that she "[...] received an extension to February 2001 to dance at Jilly's Adult Entertainment only. She was found working as an exotic dancer at the Brass Rail, contrary to the Act."

[8] On the basis of this report, she was conveyed to an inquiry before an adjudicator.

[9] The adjudicator found the applicant to be a person described in paragraph 27(2)(b) of the Act. She also held that the applicant breached the terms of her employment authorization by working at the "Brass Rail", when the employer listed in her employment authorization was "Jilly's Adult Lounge".

[10] Furthermore, the adjudicator held that a deportation order was appropriate in this case, because the applicant had no family in Canada and had no reason to return to Canada in the future.

[11] At the end of the hearing, the applicant requested that the $2,500 cash bond and the monthly reporting requirement imposed by a Senior Immigration Officer be removed. The adjudicator refused on the ground that she did not have jurisdiction to vary the terms and conditions of the applicant's release.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

[12] Paragraph 27(2)(b) of the Act reads as follows:

(2) An immigration officer or a peace officer shall, unless the person has been arrested pursuant to subsection 103(2), forward a written report to the Deputy Minister setting out the details of any information in the possession of the immigration officer or peace officer indicating that a person in Canada, other than a Canadian citizen or permanent resident, is a person who

[...]

(b) has engaged or continued in employment in Canada contrary to this Act or the regulations.

(2) L'agent d'immigration ou l'agent de la paix doit, sauf si la personne en cause a été arrêtée en vertu du paragraphe 103(2), faire un rapport écrit et circonstancié au sous-ministre de renseignements concernant une personne se trouvant au Canada autrement qu'à titre de citoyen canadien ou de résident permanent et indiquant que celle-ci, selon le cas_:

[...]

b) a occupé un emploi au Canada en violation de la présente loi ou de ses règlements;

[13] Subsection 18(2) of the Regulations reads as follows:

(2) No person who is in possession of a valid and subsisting employment authorization shall continue in employment in Canada unless he complies with each of the terms and conditions specified in the authorization.		(2) Une personne titulaire d'une autorisation d'emploi en cours de validité ne peut conserver un emploi au Canada que si elle respecte toutes les conditions du permis.

[14] The pertinent provisions in section 32 of the Act read as follows:

32.1(4) Where an adjudicator decides that a claimant who is the subject of an inquiry is a person described in subsection 27(2), the adjudicator shall, subject to subsection (5), make a conditional deportation order against the claimant.

32.1(5) Where the claimant referred to in subsection (4) is a person other than a person described in paragraph 19(1)(c), (c.1), (c.2), (d), (e), (f), (g), (j), (k) or (l) or 27(2)(h) or (i), the adjudicator may make a conditional departure order against the claimant if the adjudicator is satisfied that the person should be allowed to return to Canada without the written consent of the Minister.

(4) S'il conclut que le demandeur de statut faisant l'objet d'une enquête relève d'un des cas visés par le paragraphe 27(2), l'arbitre, sous réserve du paragraphe (5), prend une mesure d'expulsion conditionnelle à son endroit.

32.1(5) Dans les cas prévus au paragraphe (4) et où le demandeur de statut n'appartient pas à l'une des catégories visées aux alinéas 19(1)c), c.1), c.2), d), e), f), g), j), k) ou l) ou 27(2)h) ou i), l'arbitre peut prendre contre le demandeur de statut une mesure d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle s'il est convaincu que celui-ci devrait pouvoir revenir au Canada sans l'autorisation écrite du ministre.

[15] Subsections 103 of the Act read as follows:

103. (1) The Deputy Minister or a senior immigration officer may issue a warrant for the arrest and detention of any person where

(a) an examination or inquiry is to be held, a decision is to be made pursuant to subsection 27(4) or a removal order or conditional removal order has been made with respect to the person; and

(b) in the opinion of the Deputy Minister or that officer, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person poses a danger to the public or would not appear for the examination, inquiry or proceeding in relation to the decision or for removal from Canada.

(2) Every peace officer in Canada, whether appointed under the laws of Canada or of any province or municipality thereof, and every immigration officer may, without the issue of a warrant, an order or a direction for arrest or detention, arrest and detain or arrest and make an order to detain

(a) for an inquiry, or for a determination by a senior immigration officer under subsection 27(4), any person who on reasonable grounds is suspected of being a person referred to in paragraph 27(2)(b), (e), (f), (g) or (h), or

(b) for removal from Canada, any person against whom a removal order has been made that is to be executed,

where, in the opinion of the officer, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person poses a danger to the public or would not appear for the inquiry or the determination or for removal from Canada.

(3) Where an inquiry is to be held or is to be continued with respect to a person or a removal order or conditional removal order has been made against a person, an adjudicator may make an order for

(a) the release from detention of the person, subject to such terms and conditions as the adjudicator deems appropriate in the circumstances, including the payment of a security deposit or the posting of a performance bond;

(b) the detention of the person where, in the opinion of the adjudicator, the person is likely to pose a danger to the public or is not likely to appear for the inquiry or its continuation or for removal from Canada; or

(c) the imposition of such terms and conditions as the adjudicator deems appropriate in the circumstances, including the payment of a security deposit or the posting of a performance bond.

(3.1) Where an exclusion order, a departure order or a conditional departure order has been made by a senior immigration officer against a person, a senior immigration officer may make an order

(a) for the release from detention of the person, subject to such terms and conditions as the senior immigration officer deems appropriate in the circumstances, including the payment of a security deposit or the posting of a performance bond;

(b) for the detention of the person where, in the opinion of the senior immigration officer, the person is likely to pose a danger to the public or is not likely to appear for removal from Canada; or

(c) imposing on the person such terms and conditions as the senior immigration officer deems appropriate in the circumstances, including the payment of a security deposit or the posting of a performance bond.

(4) Where any person is detained for an examination or inquiry pursuant to this section, the person who detains or orders the detention of that person shall forthwith notify a senior immigration officer of the detention and the reasons therefor.

(5) A senior immigration officer may, within forty-eight hours from the time when a person is placed in detention pursuant to this Act, order that the person be released from detention subject to such terms and conditions as the officer deems appropriate in the circumstances, including the payment of a security deposit or the posting of a performance bond.

(6) Where any person is detained pursuant to this Act for an examination, inquiry or removal and the examination, inquiry or removal does not take place within forty-eight hours after that person is first placed in detention, or where a decision has not been made pursuant to subsection 27(4) within that period, that person shall be brought before an adjudicator forthwith and the reasons for the continued detention shall be reviewed, and thereafter that person shall be brought before an adjudicator at least once during the seven days immediately following the expiration of the forty-eight hour period and thereafter at least once during each thirty day period following each previous review, at which times the reasons for continued detention shall be reviewed.

(7) Where an adjudicator who conducts a review pursuant to subsection (6) is satisfied that the person in detention is not likely to pose a danger to the public and is likely to appear for an examination, inquiry or removal, the adjudicator shall order that the person be released from detention subject to such terms and conditions as the adjudicator deems appropriate in the circumstances, including the payment of a security deposit or the posting of a performance bond.

(8) Where an adjudicator has ordered that a person be released from detention pursuant to paragraph (3)(a) or subsection (7), that adjudicator or any other adjudicator may at any time thereafter order that the person be retaken into custody and held in detention if the adjudicator becomes satisfied that the person is likely to pose a danger to the public or is not likely to appear for an examination, inquiry or removal.

(9) Subject to subsections (10) and (11) and to any rules of the place where a person is detained, a review under subsection (6) of the reasons for the person's continued detention shall be conducted in public.

(10) An adjudicator who is satisfied that there is a serious possibility that the life, liberty or security of any person would be endangered by reason of a review of the reasons for a person's continued detention being held in public may, on application therefor, take such measures and make such order as the adjudicator considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of the review.

(11) An adjudicator who considers it appropriate to do so may take such measures and make such order as the adjudicator considers necessary to ensure the confidentiality of any hearing held in respect of any application referred to in subsection (10).

103. (1) Le sous-ministre ou l'agent principal peut lancer un mandat d'arrestation contre toute personne qui doit faire l'objet d'un interrogatoire, d'une enquête ou d'une décision de l'agent principal aux termes du paragraphe 27(4), ou qui est frappée par une mesure de renvoi ou de renvoi conditionnel, lorsqu'il croit, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'elle constitue une menace pour la sécurité publique ou qu'elle ne comparaîtra pas, ou n'obtempérera pas à la mesure de renvoi.

(2) L'agent de la paix, qu'il soit nommé en vertu d'une loi fédérale ou provinciale ou d'un règlement municipal, et l'agent d'immigration peuvent, sans mandat, ordre ou instruction à cet effet, arrêter et garder ou arrêter et faire garder_:

a) aux fins d'enquête ou d'une décision de l'agent principal aux termes du paragraphe 27(4), toute personne dont ils croient, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'elle fait partie de l'une des catégories visées aux alinéas 27(2)b), e), f), g) ou h) et qu'elle constitue une menace pour la sécurité publique ou se dérobera à l'enquête;

b) aux fins de renvoi du Canada, toute personne frappée par une mesure de renvoi exécutoire et dont ils croient, pour des motifs raisonnables, qu'elle constitue une menace pour la sécurité publique ou n'obtempérera pas à la mesure.

(3) Dans le cas d'une personne devant faire l'objet d'une enquête ou d'une enquête complémentaire ou frappée par une mesure de renvoi ou de renvoi conditionnel, l'arbitre peut ordonner_:

a) soit de la mettre en liberté, aux conditions qu'il juge indiquées en l'espèce, notamment la fourniture d'un cautionnement ou d'une garantie de bonne exécution;

b) soit de la faire garder, s'il croit qu'elle constitue vraisemblablement une menace pour la sécurité publique ou qu'à défaut de cette mesure, elle se dérobera vraisemblablement à l'enquête ou à sa reprise ou n'obtempérera pas à la mesure de renvoi;

c) soit de fixer les conditions qu'il juge indiquées en l'espèce, notamment la fourniture d'un cautionnement ou d'une garantie de bonne exécution.

(3.1) Dans le cas d'une personne frappée par une mesure d'exclusion, d'interdiction de séjour ou d'interdiction de séjour conditionnelle prise par un agent principal, celui-ci peut ordonner_:

a) soit de la mettre en liberté, aux conditions qu'il juge indiquées en l'espèce, notamment la fourniture d'un cautionnement ou d'une garantie de bonne exécution;

b) soit de la faire garder, s'il croit qu'elle constitue vraisemblablement une menace pour la sécurité publique ou qu'à défaut de cette mesure, elle n'obtempérera vraisemblablement pas à la mesure;

c) soit fixer les conditions qu'il juge indiquées en l'espèce, notamment la fourniture d'un cautionnement ou d'une garantie de bonne exécution.

(4) Le gardien ou celui qui, en application du présent article, ordonne la garde aux fins d'interrogatoire ou d'enquête doit immédiatement en aviser un agent principal, avec motifs à l'appui.

(5) Dans les quarante-huit heures suivant le moment où une personne est placée sous garde en application de la présente loi, l'agent principal peut ordonner sa mise en liberté, aux conditions qu'il juge indiquées en l'espèce, notamment la fourniture d'un cautionnement ou d'une garantie de bonne exécution.

(6) Si l'interrogatoire, l'enquête ou le renvoi aux fins desquels il est gardé n'ont pas lieu dans les quarante-huit heures, ou si la décision n'est pas prise aux termes du paragraphe 27(4) dans ce délai, l'intéressé est amené, dès l'expiration de ce délai, devant un arbitre pour examen des motifs qui pourraient justifier une prolongation de sa garde; par la suite, il comparaît devant un arbitre aux mêmes fins au moins une fois_:

a) dans la période de sept jours qui suit l'expiration de ce délai;

b) tous les trente jours après l'examen effectué pendant cette période.

(7) S'il est convaincu qu'il ne constitue vraisemblablement pas une menace pour la sécurité publique et qu'il ne se dérobera vraisemblablement pas à l'interrogatoire, à l'enquête ou au renvoi, l'arbitre chargé de l'examen prévu au paragraphe (6) ordonne la mise en liberté de l'intéressé, aux conditions qu'il juge indiquées en l'espèce, notamment la fourniture d'un cautionnement ou d'une garantie de bonne exécution.

(8) Après la mise en liberté prévue à l'alinéa (3)a) ou au paragraphe (7), l'arbitre qui l'a ordonnée ou un autre arbitre peut à tout moment ordonner à nouveau la mise sous garde de l'intéressé, s'il estime que celui-ci constitue vraisemblablement une menace pour la sécurité publique ou qu'il se dérobera vraisemblablement à l'interrogatoire, à l'enquête ou au renvoi.

(9) Sous réserve des paragraphes (10) et (11) et des règles en vigueur au lieu de détention, l'arbitre tient l'examen visé au paragraphe (6) en présence du public.

(10) L'arbitre peut, sur demande en ce sens, s'il lui est démontré qu'il y a une sérieuse possibilité que la vie, la liberté ou la sécurité d'une personne soit mise en danger par la publicité des débats, prendre toute mesure ou rendre toute ordonnance qu'il juge nécessaire pour en assurer la confidentialité.

(11) L'arbitre peut, s'il l'estime indiqué, prendre toute mesure ou rendre toute ordonnance qu'il juge nécessaire pour assurer la confidentialité de l'audition de la demande.

ANALYSIS

[16] The applicant first submits that the adjudicator, in reaching her decision, misapplied the Act, and made findings and drew conclusions that were in complete disregard to the evidence presented. The applicant argues that the only evidence that was led against her alleged that she breached the employment location of her employment authorization and not with respect to the employer. I disagree.

[17] The applicant's employment authorization clearly states that the employer is "Jilly's Adult Lounge". Under number 3 of the terms and conditions of the employment authorization, the applicant is "not authorized to work for any employer other than stated". As the applicant was found working at the "Brass Rail", the adjudicator was correct in finding that the applicant had breach the terms of her employment authorization:

Under the circumstances, since the employment authorization in my estimation is clear on its face that the employer in the last instance is Jilly's Adult Lounge as opposed to the immediately prior issued employment authorization which specified the Brass Rail, that the terms and conditions listed specify that you are not authorized to work for any employer other than stated. The employer stated is Jilly's Adult Lounge and as such I am satisfied that the terms and conditions of the employment authorization, the most recent one marked as both page 4 of Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 4 as a standalone employment authorization copy has been breached by your employment at the Brass Rail of instead of Jilly's Adult Lounge.

Tribunal Record at 19-20.

[18] There is the question of whether the applicant could have believed that "Jilly's Adult Lounge" and the "Brass Rail" were owned by the same employer, and that by working at the "Brass Rail", she was still working for the same employer, only at a different location. The adjudicator rejected this possibility, as the applicant's previous employment authorization had listed the employer as the "Brass Rail", and consequently, she would have known that the "Brass Rail" and "Jilly's Adult Lounge" were two different employers. The adjudicator stated that:

[...] there is no evidence that the owner or manager of Jilly's Adult Lounge is also and/or is also the manager of the Brass Rail Tavern. The employment authorization that you did have the year previous from February 99 to January 2000 was specific to the Brass Rail Tavern. They are clearly two different locations, two different physical locations. While they may both still be in the City of Toronto the employer is listed as Jilly's Adult Lounge. It is not listed as the manager of Jilly's Adult Lounge. It is listed as Jilly's Adult Lounge as the previous one was listed the Brass Rail Tavern. [...]

Tribunal Record at 19.

[19] In light of these facts, I agree with the adjudicator that the applicant would have known that the "Brass Rail" and "Jilly's Adult Lounge" were two different employers.

[20] The applicant then submits that in issuing a deportation order instead of a departure order, the adjudicator erred by exceeding her jurisdiction. Again, I disagree.

[21] The provisions pertaining to this question are found in subsections 32.1(4) and (5) of the Act. These provisions indicate that a deportation order is the rule, unless the adjudicator is satisfied that the person should be allowed to return to Canada without the written consent of the Minister. In the case at bar, the adjudicator ordered a deportation order on the ground that the applicant had no family in Canada, had no reason to return in the future, and there were no mitigating circumstances that would require her to return without the consent of the Minister.

[22] Given that the applicant provided no reason as to why a departure order should be ordered, I conclude that the adjudicator did not err in ordering a deportation order.

[23] The applicant further argues that the adjudicator erred in determining that she did not have jurisdiction to review the terms and conditions of the applicant's release. According to the applicant, subsection 103(6) of the Act indicates that after 48 hours, all issues of detention and/or terms of release are the jurisdiction of the adjudicator. In my view, the applicant has wrongly interpreted this provision.

[24] The adjudicator's jurisdiction is limited to the powers given by the legislation. Subsection 103(6) only applies where a person is being detained. This provision allows an adjudicator to review the reasons for the continued detention of a person, where that person has been detained and an examination, inquiry or removal has not taken place within 48 hours. As the applicant was not being physically detained at the time of the inquiry, subsection 103(6) is not applicable.

[25] Furthermore, the terms and conditions of release were imposed by a Senior Immigration Officer pursuant to subsection 103(5). There is no statutory authority under section 103 of the Act which allows an adjudicator to modify the terms of release imposed by a Senior Immigration Officer.

[26] As such, the adjudicator did not err when she held that she did not have jurisdiction to review the terms and conditions of the applicant's release.

[27] For these reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed.

[28] Counsel for the applicant requested the following question for certification.

Whether section 103 of the Immigration Act gives an adjudicator jurisdiction to vary terms and conditions of release imposed by an immigration officer subsequent to arrest? or does that jurisdiction rest with the Federal Court on an application for leave and judicial review of the immigration officer's imposed terms and conditions?

[29] I am satisfied that the answer to this question rests with the applicable statute and that there is no serious legal issue that would require the attention of the Federal Court of Appeal. I will not certify the question.

ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed.

"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"

J.F.C.C.

FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET: IMM-2881-01

STYLE OF CAUSE: DELLA CSILLA KALI

Applicant

- and -

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2002

PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY: MADAM JUSTICE TREMBLAY-LAMER

DATED: OCTOBER 16, 2002

APPEARANCES BY:

Mr. Rocco Galati For the Applicant

Mr. Martin Anderson For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Mr. Rocco Galati

Galati, Rodrigue & Associates

Barristers & Solicitors

637 College Street, Suite 203

Toronto, ON M6G 1B5 For the Applicant

Mr. Martin Anderson

Department of Justice

130 King St. West, Suite 3400

Toronto, ON M5X 1K6 For the Respondent

You are here

Kali v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 1080

Citations2002 FCT 1080

Case tabs

Citations
2002 FCT 1080