Date: 20090224
Docket: IMM-1094-08
Citation: 2009
FC 195
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, FEBRUARY 24, 2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice de Montigny
BETWEEN:
XIAO
ZI QI
Applicant
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
Mr. Zi Qi
Xiao (a.k.a. Xiao Zi Qi), a citizen of the People’s Republic of China, seeks
leave to judicially review Officer Chan’s February 19, 2008 decision refusing
his application for a permanent resident visa. Mr. Xiao seeks to challenge
Officer Chan’s finding that Mr. Xiao’s son is inadmissible for criminality
because he committed an act in Hong Kong that is an offence in Hong Kong and
that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence
under an Act of Parliament.
BACKGROUND
[2]
The
applicant was born on December 18, 1950 in the City of Nan County in the Province of Hunan. He is married to Jian Zi
Qun, who is also a citizen of the People’s Republic of China. The applicant and his wife have three
children, all of whom were also born in the Province of Hunan.
[3]
The
applicant is a businessman who has worked in the engineering and construction
industry for over 33 years. He is currently the President and General Manager
of Hunan Zhongqi Type Engineering Co. Ltd., a company which specializes in the
construction and equipment installation of public construction projects,
including government offices, schools, sports centres, hotels, and other
buildings. The company has approximately 125 full-time employees.
[4]
On August
30, 2004, the applicant applied for a permanent resident visa through the province of Quebec under the investor
category.
[5]
By way of
letter dated November 2, 2006, the Immigration Office informed the applicant
that permanent resident visas for him and his dependants were ready for
collection. He was requested to collect them in person within 120 days. On
December 20, 2006, Mr. Xiao attended at the Hong Kong visa office to pick up the visas. When
he presented his passport and the passports of his dependants, the visa officer
noticed that pages 7, 8, 25 and 26 were missing from Mr. Xiao’s youngest son’s (Baian’s)
passport.
[6]
The
applicant told the visa officer that he did not know why pages were missing
from Baian’s passport, and asked for permission to have his son attend at the
visa office to explain the missing pages.
[7]
On that
same day, the visa officer interviewed Baian. Mr. Xiao was not present during the
interview with the visa officer. Baian first tried to explain the missing pages
by speculating that his 5-year-old cousin must have removed them. The visa
officer did not find that story credible; he informed the applicant that his
son had been deemed inadmissible, and that, consequently, he and his remaining
dependants were also inadmissible.
[8]
Upon
exiting the booth, Baian returned and stated that he was now prepared to tell
the truth. He then told the visa officer that his girlfriend removed the pages
because she was mad at him as he could not go to Europe with her. The officer
questioned Baian further but did not believe his explanation. Even though
Baian alleged that he had been a student in the U.K. for the previous six years and he had
traveled back and forth from the U.K., there was neither a U.K. visa nor any U.K. stamps in his passport.
[9]
On
December 21, 2006, the visa officer refused Mr. Xiao’s application for a
permanent resident visa on the basis that he was inadmissible to Canada because his son Baian was
inadmissible for criminality under s. 36(2)(c) of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “IRPA”). More
particularly, the visa officer found that Baian had committed the offence of
possession and use of an altered passport to gain entry to Hong Kong, under Chapter
521, s. 5(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Ordinance of Hong Kong. The
visa officer also concluded that Baian’s acts would also constitute an offence
under s. 57(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
[10]
The
applicant filed an Application for Leave and Judicial Review of that first decision
and filed, as part of his record, a legal opinion prepared by Michael C.
Blanchflower, a former Department of Justice lawyer who has been practising in
Hong Kong in the field of criminal law, human rights and judicial review since
1986, first in various capacities for the government of Hong Kong and, since
2002, as a barrister in private practice.
[11]
On July
10, 2007, the respondent offered to set aside the visa officer’s decision and
remit his application to a different visa officer for processing if the
applicant filed a Notice of Discontinuance in respect of his Application for
Leave and for Judicial Review. The respondent’s offer letter did not state the
basis on which the offer was made. On July 12, 2007, Mr. Xiao filed a notice
of discontinuance.
[12]
On August
21, 2007, Mr. Xiao provided the family’s passports to the Hong Kong Visa
Office, including a new passport for Baian. On August 27, 2007, Mr. Xiao
provided further submissions to the Hong Kong Visa Office, consisting of the
applicant’s Record from his discontinued judicial review of the first refusal
and including the opinion prepared by Mr. Blanchflower.
[13]
On
September 12, 2007, Officer Chan sent a letter to Mr. Xiao stating that he had
a serious concern that Baian was inadmissible to Canada for criminality under
s. 36(2)(c) of IRPA. He indicated that Baian had committed in Hong Kong
on December 20, 2006, the act of being in possession of an altered travel
document which constituted an offence under s. 42(2)(c)(i) of Chapter 115 of
the Immigration Ordinance of Hong Kong. This offence, if
committed in Canada, would constitute an
indictable offence under s. 122(1)(b) of IRPA. These offences were
different from those cited in the earlier refusal by the first visa officer.
Officer Chan invited Mr. Xiao to provide evidence and make further submissions
to address his concerns.
[14]
On
November 9, 2007, Mr. Xiao resubmitted the evidence previously provided to the
Hong Kong Visa Office, and also provided a second opinion of Mr. Blanchflower
addressing the concerns raised by Officer Chan in his September 12, 2007
letter. In a nutshell, Mr. Blanchflower was of the opinion that the passport
with the missing pages does not constitute an “altered travel document” within
s. 42(2)(c)(i) of the Ordinance for two reasons: first, there is no
evidence the alteration was done “unlawfully”, and second, the missing pages do
not constitute an alteration under that provision. He relied for those
propositions on the legislative history of the provision, on arguments of legislative
construction, and on the case law.
[15]
On
February 19, 2008, Officer Chan refused Mr. Xiao’s application for a permanent
resident visa on the basis that Baian is criminally inadmissible to Canada.
THE IMPUGNED DECISION
[16]
In his
final decision, Officer Chan essentially reiterates the concerns he had
previously expressed in his September 12, 2007 letter. He stated that the
applicant’s son Baian committed an offence under s. 42(2)(i) of the Immigration
Ordinance of Hong Kong as a result of possessing and using an altered
passport to gain entry to Hong Kong. He added that, if committed in Canada, this would constitute an
offence under s. 122(1)(b) of the IRPA, punishable by way of
indictment. The letter also stated that under s. 42(a) of IRPA, a foreign
national is inadmissible on grounds of an inadmissible family member.
Therefore, the applicant is inadmissible since his son is found to be
criminally inadmissible.
[17]
The
Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System (“CAIPS”) notes, which form part
of the reasons for the decision, expand somewhat on the rationale underlying
the decision. The relevant portion of these notes read as follows:
The applicant submitted
detailed legal references of HK and Canadian court cases that purported to
define terms in relation to the criminal inadmissibility of his family member,
Xiao Baian. This is a result of Xiao Baian’s committing in Hong Kong on
20DEC06 the offence of s42(2)(c)(i) of Chapter 115 the Immigration Ordinance of
Hong Kong. If committed in Canada, would constitute an offence
under S122(1)(b) of the IRPA.
While the submission in
response to our concern letter provided suggestions on definitions of the terms
in the offences in Immigration Ordinance of Hong Kong and IRPA, there is no
denial of the fact that Xiao Baian was in possession of an altered travel
document/passport. Secondly, there is no denial of the fact that the said
passport was presented for the purpose of entering into Canada because it was used for the
permanent resident visas. Finally, after the applicant was advised of our
concern by our letter, applicant did not give credible explanation that might
justify the alteration.
Applicant submitted that the
alteration did not take place in the bio-page of the said passport, yet, this does
not change the fact that it was an altered passport possessed by applicant’s
family member, presented to our office for permanent resident visas for
entering into Canada.
S42(4)(a) of Chapter 115 the
Immigration Ordinance of Hong Kong states that this is an indictable offence up
to 14 years of imprisonment.
S123(1)(b) of IRPA stipulates
that “Every person who contravenes paragraph 122(1)(b)…is guilty of an offence
and liable on conviction on indictment to a term of imprisonment of up to 14
years.”
Thus, applicant’s family
member, Xiao Baian, is a person described in paragraph 36(2)(c) of IRPA. Xiao
Baian is criminally inadmissible. As per s42(a) of IRPA, applicant was also
inadmissible as a result of an inadmissible family member.
Application is refused today
pursuant to subsection 11(1) and subsection 42(a) of IRPA. Refusal letter
signed.
RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
[18]
For ease
of reference and for a better understanding of the analysis that follows, the
relevant statutory provisions are provided here:
|
Application
before entering Canada
11. (1)
A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a
visa or for any other document required by the regulations. The visa or
document may be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied
that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of
this Act.
Criminality
36. (2) A foreign national is inadmissible
on grounds of criminality for
(c) committing an act outside Canada
that is an offence in the place where it was committed and that, if committed
in Canada, would constitute an indictable
offence under an Act of Parliament; or
Inadmissible
family member
42. A foreign national, other than a
protected person, is inadmissible on grounds of an inadmissible family member
if
(a) their accompanying family member or, in prescribed
circumstances, their non-accompanying family member is inadmissible; or
(b) they are an accompanying family member of an
inadmissible person.
Documents
122. (1)
No person shall, in order to contravene this Act,
(a) possess a passport, visa or other document, of
Canadian or foreign origin, that purports to establish or that could be used
to establish a person’s identity;
(b) use such a document, including for the purpose of
entering or remaining in Canada; or
(c) import, export or deal in such a document.
|
Visa et documents
11. (1) L’étranger doit, préalablement à son entrée au Canada, demander à
l’agent les visa et autres documents requis par règlement. L’agent peut les
délivrer sur preuve, à la suite d’un contrôle, que l’étranger n’est pas
interdit de territoire et se conforme à la présente loi.
Criminalité
36. (2) Emportent, sauf
pour le résident permanent, interdiction de territoire pour criminalité les
faits suivants :
c) commettre, à l’extérieur du Canada, une infraction
qui, commise au Canada, constituerait une infraction à une loi fédérale
punissable par mise en accusation;
Inadmissibilité familiale
42. Emportent, sauf pour le résident permanent ou une personne protégée, interdiction
de territoire pour inadmissibilité familiale les faits suivants :
a) l’interdiction de territoire frappant tout membre
de sa famille qui l’accompagne ou qui, dans les cas réglementaires, ne
l’accompagne pas;
b) accompagner, pour un membre de sa famille, un
interdit de territoire.
Possession, utilisation ou commerce
122. (1) Commet une infraction quiconque, en vue de contrevenir à la
présente loi et s’agissant de tout document — passeport, visa ou autre, qu’il
soit canadien ou étranger — pouvant ou censé établir l’identité d’une
personne :
a) l’a en sa possession;
b) l’utilise, notamment pour entrer au Canada ou y
séjourner;
c) l’importe ou l’exporte, ou en fait le commerce.
|
ISSUES
[19]
The
applicant has raised four issues, which have been rejoined by the respondent in
his oral and written submissions. They can be framed as follows:
- Did the Visa Officer err in
failing to provide a legal opinion to support his concerns and in failing to
properly consider the submissions of the applicant?
- Did the Visa Officer err in
finding that the applicant’s family member committed an offence in Hong Kong?
- Did the Visa Officer failed
to compare the essential ingredients of the alleged offence in the Hong Kong
statute and the alleged offence in the Canadian statute?
- Did the Visa Officer err in
finding that the alleged offence would have constituted an offence in Canada?
ANALYSIS
[20]
Both
parties agreed that reasonableness was the applicable standard of review in the
case at bar. The decision of the visa officer with respect to the last three
issues was clearly fact-based, and as such calls for the standard of
reasonableness. Before the decision of the Supreme Court in Dunsmuir v.
New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190, there
was conflicting case law in this Court on this issue: some cases applied a
standard of reasonableness while others stipulated a standard of patent
unreasonableness. With the merging of these two standards, this has now become
a moot issue.
[21]
However,
the same cannot be said of the first issue. Whether the officer could come to
his own interpretation of the Hong Kong Ordinance without relying on expert
evidence is a question of law. As such, it calls for the standard of
correctness.
[22]
Given that
the interpretation of the words “unlawful” and “altered” in the Immigration
Ordinance of Hong
Kong is crucial
to the assessment of the applicant’s son’s potential criminal inadmissibility,
the applicant contends that the visa officer erred in relying upon foreign law
without providing expert legal evidence to prove the foreign law and its
meaning. Indeed, counsel for the applicant argued that the legal opinion of
Mr. Blanchflower cried out for a rebuttal from the government, and that it was
unreasonable for the visa officer to dismiss that opinion without addressing it
in any meaningful manner.
[23]
After
having carefully reviewed Mr. Blanchflower’s second opinion and the visa officer’s
purported answer to it, I have come to the conclusion that the applicant’s
argument must prevail.
[24]
It is well
established that to rely on foreign law in judicial proceedings, the party
asserting the foreign law must provide expert evidence to prove it. Foreign
law must be proven as a matter of fact by the evidence of persons who are
experts in the law: Allen v. Hay, [1922] 64 S.C.R. 76, at para.
24. I agree with the respondent, however, that these rules of evidence do not
have to be adhered to strictly in the context of administrative proceedings.
For example, it is now well-settled that foreign criminal law may be proved without
expert evidence in determining criminal inadmissibility in the immigration
context. The decision-maker may rely on expert evidence if it is available,
but may also rely on the foreign and domestic statutory provisions and the
totality of the evidence, both oral and documentary: see, e.g., Hill v. Canada (Minister of Employment and
Immigration)
(1987), 73 N.R. 315, 1 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.A.); Li v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
[1997] 1 F.C. 235 (F.C.A.).
[25]
That being
said, expert evidence remains the most reliable way to prove foreign law, not
only as to its existence but, more importantly, as to its meaning. For
example, this Court recently found that it was unreasonable for the Refugee
Protection Division to give meaning to a section of the Aliens Act of Germany by relying merely on German
consular officials. As the Court stated:
Unlike with other findings of
fact made by the Board in determining refugee claims, the criterion for
establishing the “fact” in this case – that is, the content of section 44(1)2
of the Aliens Act – requires proof by way of expert evidence of that foreign
law.
(…)
After reviewing the record
before the Board, I find that there is insufficient evidence to justify the
Board’s finding with respect to section 44(1)2 of the Aliens Act. The Board
did not have any expert evidence to assist it in interpreting the content of
the Aliens Act. In fact, the Board did not even have an authenticated version
of the relevant statutory provisions. The Board had only an English-language
version of section 44(1)2 of the Aliens Act, and even that version was not
certified as an accurate translation of the original, which was presumably
written in German. Further, the comments made by German consular officials
cannot be deemed to constitute evidence of persons who are experts in German
law. Indeed, there is no indication of the qualifications of the consular
officials to give a legal opinion as to the proper interpretation of section
44(1) of the Aliens Act.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) v.
Choubak, 2006 FC 521, at paras. 47-48. Contra: Farkas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
2007 FC 277 (in that case, though, there was no dispute as to the meaning of
the foreign law).
[26]
Be that as
it may, it seems to me the visa officer could not reasonably conclude as
he did. The only expertise on file is to the effect that carrying a passport
with four missing pages would not amount to an offence under the Hong Kong Immigration
Ordinance, unless the alteration has been done with a criminal intent and
the missing pages contain information about the holder’s identity, nationality
and other material particulars. The conclusion that the applicant’s son had
committed an offence is thus unreasonable. It is one thing to say that expert
evidence is not always required to prove and decipher foreign law; it is quite
another to determine that an offence has been committed pursuant to a foreign
statute despite contrary expert evidence and upon no other basis than the
Officer’s own understanding of that statute.
[27]
The
respondent argued that there is no evidence Mr. Blanchflower has direct
experience or knowledge in interpreting the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, since it came into force 16 years after he left Canada. While this may well be so,
Mr. Blanchflower’s credentials with respect to the law of Hong Kong are undisputable. Not only
has he been practising law in Hong Kong for the last 20 years, but he has successively
held senior positions as a government lawyer in that country, first as Crown
counsel, and then as Assistant Solicitor General, Senior Assistant Director of
Public Prosecutions, Deputy Principal Government Counsel (Mutual Legal
Assistance Unit), and Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions. He is
not just any other lawyer from Hong Kong, and his expert opinion could not be
dismissed offhand.
[28]
It is no
doubt true, as contended by the respondent, that a decision-maker’s factual
findings regarding foreign law, including findings of fact regarding expert
evidence, warrant deference. It is also well established that the weight to be
given to expert evidence is a matter for the trier of fact. However, this is
not the same as saying that the decision-maker can disregard expert opinion,
especially when it is cogent and well-reasoned. Interestingly, the decision of
the Federal Court of Appeal relied on by the respondent to support his plea for
deference makes this very point:
…the weight to be given expert
evidence is a matter for the trier of fact and an expert’s conclusion which is
not appropriately explained and supported may properly be given no weight at
all. A lawyer’s bare opinion, without supporting and explanatory references to
legislation and decisions, is no more likely to prove foreign law to the
satisfaction of the court than, for example, the bare opinion of a land
appraiser, without reference to comparable properties and transactions…It
would, indeed, be astonishing if foreign law could not be established as a
matter of fact by the opinion of a qualified lawyer.
R. v. Capitol Life Insurance Co.,
[1986] 1 C.T.C. 388, at para. 13-14.
[29]
This is
all the more so when there is no evidence that the decision-maker is not
himself a lawyer, and when the expert legal opinion as to the proper
interpretation of a foreign statute is the only one on file and is not obscure
or manifestly extravagant. To quote from another decision of the Federal Court
Trial Division:
Mr. Boreman was the only
witness who was called to depose as to what the law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is. If there had been the
evidence of another witness which conflicted with that of Mr. Boreman I would
then be entitled to examine and construe the passages cited in order to arrive
at a satisfactory conclusion on the conflicting testimony. I would be entitled
to do that if the evidence of Mr. Boreman was obscure.
I approach this matter bearing
in mind that it is not the function of this Court to substitute its own
interpretation of the foreign law predicated upon the citations proffered for
the sworn testimony of an expert as to what the foreign law is on this
particular matter. This is not a case where I find myself unable to accept the
testimony of a foreign lawyer which may be done in exceptional cases. The
exceptional cases I have in mind are when a foreign expert arrives at a result
so extravagant and involving such a misunderstanding of concepts familiar to
lawyers of all countries that the evidence of the foreign expert cannot be
accepted and the Court concludes that it can safely and must interpret the
matter for itself, based on those universally accepted concepts. The
proposition put forward by Mr. Boreman, and for which he cites and interprets
authorities, is not so astounding as to warrant its rejection.
There was no contradictory
expert evidence and the proposition advanced by Mr. Boreman was not obscure.
In my opinion this is not a case where I may or should resort to my own
interpretation of the citations with a view to reaching a conclusion as to the
law of Pennsylvania.
Murphy Estate v. Minister of National
Revenue, [1974] C.T.C. 552, at paras. 69-71
[30]
If the
Court of Appeal, composed of distinguished jurists, is of the view that
uncontested expert legal opinion deserves some deference, it seems to me an
administrative decision-maker should at the very least adopt the same kind of
attitude. The respondent alleges that the visa officer did consider Mr.
Blanchflower’s opinion and discussed it. While this may notionally be true, the
discussion is, at best, rather cursory. Rather than conducting a full review
and analysis of the opinion and of the applicant’s submissions, the visa officer
merely acknowledged the assistance of Mr. Blanchflower and refers to his
analysis regarding the definition of terms in the Hong Kong Ordinance as
“suggestions”.
[31]
The visa officer
then concluded, by what amounts to a circular argument, that the expert
evidence does not change the fact that the Xiao Baian was in possession of an
altered passport, and presented it for the purpose of entering Canada. That finding, of course,
begs the question, since the passport would not be altered as a result of its
missing pages if Mr. Blanchflower’s opinion were accepted.
[32]
The
respondent further submitted that Mr. Blanchflower was not aware of key,
relevant facts in forming the opinion that the alterations to Xiao Baian’s
passport were not intentional, unlawful or material. In particular, it is
alleged that he was not aware that Baian had deliberately removed four pages
from his passport, that he was not eligible for a Canadian permanent resident
visa unless he was a student, that he claimed to have been studying in the
U.K., and that all the pages pertaining to his alleged travels to the U.K. were
missing.
[33]
This
argument calls for a number of comments. First, it is not at all clear whether
and how these “facts” – even assuming they are established – would impact the
opinion of Mr. Blanchflower. I fail to see, in particular, how it would modify
his opinion that it is only an offence to alter a passport if the alteration
prevents the holder’s true identity, nationality, domicile or place of
permanent residence from being known. Moreover, some of the “facts” referred
to by the respondent would seem to be more accurately characterized as
speculations, and do not align with the evidence that was before the visa officer.
(For example, there is no evidence that Baian “deliberately removed” the four
pages from his passport; his version to the visa officer, admittedly after
having lied before, is that his girlfriend ripped those pages and that he
subsequently “cleaned it up and made it look nice”.) Finally, and maybe more
importantly, the decision of the visa officer is also not based on the “facts”
Mr. Blanchflower had possibly not been made aware of. The reason Xiao Baian
was found to contravene s. 42(2)(i) of the Hong Kong Ordinance was that
he was in possession of an altered document; the visa officer did not determine
how the document was altered, and did not ascribe any mens rea to Xiao
Baian beyond saying that he did not give a credible explanation that might
justify the alteration.
[34]
Finally,
the respondent tried in his Memorandum and Further Memorandum of argument to
challenge Mr. Blanchflower’s opinion and to present an alternative construction
of the impugned section of the Hong
Kong Ordinance.
In particular, counsel for the respondent contends that Mr. Blanchflower’s
opinion, according to which the word “altered” is restricted to alterations
relating to the holder’s identity, nationality, domicile or place of residence,
is not borne out by the explanatory memorandum to the Bill that preceded the
enactment of the Immigration Ordinance. It is also argued that this
opinion of Mr. Blanchflower is not consistent with the purpose of a passport as
evidenced from the Canadian Immigration Enforcement Manual.
[35]
These are
no doubt interesting submissions that might well have been worth considering
had they been made by the visa officer. However, it is trite law that counsel
for the respondent cannot supplement the reasons given by the decision-maker at
the stage of an application for judicial review. What must be reviewed are the
reasons provided by the visa officer himself. In any event, these submissions
would suffer from the same frailty as the reasons given by the visa officer:
while they would have the benefit of being more extensive and transparent than
the explanations given by the visa officer, they would still emanate from a
Canadian lawyer with no proven expertise on Hong Kong law. While I would be
remiss to categorically exclude the possibility that such an opinion could
provide the reasonable basis upon which to find the applicant inadmissible,
this is not the issue of which the Court is seized in the case at bar.
[36]
For all
the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the visa officer could not reasonably
conclude that the main applicant’s son had committed acts that were an offence
in Hong Kong, and therefore find him criminally inadmissible in Canada, in light of the expert opinion
to the contrary provided by Mr. Blanchflower and in the absence of any contrary
expert opinion. This is not to say that the visa officer himself should have sought
an independent legal opinion; in the normal course of events, I believe the
respondent should bear the burden of providing expert opinion supporting his
position.
[37]
I wish to
make it clear that these reasons should not be interpreted as requiring expert
opinion in all circumstances where immigration officials make decisions
predicated on foreign law. However, when an applicant’s position is buttressed
by credible and well-articulated opinion authored by an expert whose
credentials are not in dispute, it will most likely be unreasonable to come to
an opposite conclusion without the benefit of any expert evidence to the
contrary.
[38]
Considering
this finding, there is no need to make any determination as to the other three
questions raised in this application for judicial review.
[39]
Accordingly,
this application for judicial review is allowed. The parties did not suggest
certification of any serious questions of general importance, and I am
satisfied that none arises in the case at bar.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that this application for judicial
review is allowed. This matter will be referred back for reconsideration by a
different visa officer. No question is certified.
"Yves
de Montigny"
Email this Content