Docket: T-1391-10
Citation: 2011 FC 1129
Toronto, Ontario, October 4,
2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
|
|
ESTHER OGBEVUON OKHIONKPANMWONYI
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
The
Applicant Esther Ogbevuon Okhionkpanmwonyi, originally a Nigerian citizen,
became a Canadian citizen on February 12, 2008. She applied for a Canadian
passport and received it (passport number WP 793908) on May 23, 2008.
Subsequently, the Canadian Border Services Agency determined that on two
separate occasions that passport had been used by imposters in an effort to
enter Canada illegally.
The Applicant reported that the passport had been lost.
[2]
Passport
Canada, a Special
Operating Agency of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
investigated the matter and concluded that the Applicant had misused her
passport. Passport Canada gave the Applicant an opportunity to make
representations concerning the matter, which she did. Having considered those
representations, Passport Canada, in a letter dated August 4, 2010, advised
the Applicant that passport WP 793908 was revoked, that no new passport would
be issued, and that passport services would be refused to the Applicant for a
period of five (5) years. It is this decision that is the subject of this
application for judicial review.
[3]
Applicant’s
Counsel raises three issues as to the decision under review; namely, was the
evidence misconstrued, were conclusions made without proper evidentiary bases
or proof, and was the assessment of the evidence perverse or capricious, or unfairly
or improperly assessed.
[4]
In
brief, Applicant’s Counsel argues that the decision is a result of improper
assessment of the evidence, or lack thereof.
[5]
The
Applicant filed an affidavit in support of her application. She was not
cross-examined. The Respondent filed an affidavit of Ralph Micucci, an
Investigator with Passport Canada. He was cross-examined.
[6]
It
is recognized that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section
6(1), affords a Canadian citizen such as the Applicant the right to enter,
remain in and leave Canada. A passport facilitates that right and in many
instances is essential in exercising that right. On the other hand, it is
equally to be recognized that misuse of a passport, such as the facilitation of
entry into Canada by imposters,
is not to be tolerated. The Canadian Passport Order S1/81-86 provides
for a number of circumstances in which a passport may be issued, refused,
revoked or revoked for a period of time. Section 10(2)(c) provides:
10. . . .
(2) In
addition, Passport Canada may revoke the passport of a person who
. . .
(c) permits
another person to use the passport;
[7]
Section
10.2 provides:
10.2 The authority to make a decision to refuse or
revoke a passport under this Order includes the authority to impose a period of
withheld passport service.
[8]
In
the present case, the passport issued to the Applicant was revoked and, in
effect, she cannot get another for five years. The basis
raised by the Applicant for objecting to that decision essentially rests on
allegations as to misappreciation of the evidence. I have thoroughly reviewed the
evidence before the decision-maker, and the decision itself. I do not agree
with Applicant’s Counsel that the evidence was not properly appreciated. The
decision-maker had a sound basis for making the decision, and the decision was
reasonable.
[9]
I
see no need to itemize or meticulously review each and every point raised by
Applicant’s Counsel with respect to the evidence or the decision made. The
Applicant is simply asking that the evidence be reweighed and that a different
result be achieved. I am satisfied that the decision was reasonable and arrived
at properly.
[10]
As
a result, the application is dismissed with costs to the Respondent I have
reviewed the Respondent’s Draft Bill of Costs and fix costs including
disbursements and taxes in the sum of $2,000.00.
JUDGMENT
FOR THE
REASONS PROVIDED:
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT
is that:
1.
The
application is dismissed; and
2.
The
Respondent is entitled to costs to be paid by the Applicant, fixed in the sum
of $2,000.00.
“Roger T. Hughes”
Email this Content