Date:
20130920
Docket:
T-400-13
Citation:
2013 FC 967
Ottawa, Ontario,
September 20, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Manson
BETWEEN:
|
|
DEBBIE LYNNE SIMMONDS
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of the decision of Peter Bulatovic,
Director, Investigation Division of Passport Canada [Passport Canada], pursuant
to section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7. The
Adjudicator revoked the Applicant’s passport and ordered that passport services
to the Applicant be withheld until July 16, 2017.
I. Background
[2]
The
facts underlying Passport Canada’s decision are not in dispute. On July 16,
2012, the Applicant submitted a passport application for her son Adam. As part
of this application, the Applicant answered “yes” to the question “Are there
any separation agreements, court orders or legal proceedings pertaining to
custody or mobility of, or access to, the child?” She submitted two court
orders. One was dated June 16, 2008, and granted joint custody of Adam to the
Applicant and the Applicant’s ex-husband, Ryan Simmonds. The other was dated
March 18, 2011, and granted Mr. Simmonds access rights to Adam.
[3]
However,
this was not the extent of any court orders or legal proceedings pertaining to
Adam. Most relevant were the Reasons of Judgment by Justice Brown of the
British Columbia Supreme Court, dated July 5, 2012, which granted Mr. Simmonds
sole custody of Adam, and the Order of Justice Brown dated and entered July 6,
2012, which granted Mr. Simmonds the right to take Adam to the United States
from August 13 to 27, 2012, and to apply for a passport for Adam without the
Applicant’s signature. These documents would have made the Applicant ineligible
to apply for a passport for Adam, pursuant to s. 7(1)(b) of the Canadian
Passport Order, SI/81-86 [the Order].
[4]
The
omission of these documents came to the attention of Passport Canada via Mr. Simmonds, who had, on July 9, 2012, first contacted Passport Canada to make them aware he had not signed any Application for Adam’s passport. On July 16, 2012,
Mr. Simmonds attended the Passport Canada office in Surrey, British Columbia to
provide it with 14 court documents relating to family law matters between the
Applicant and himself, dating from April 18, 2008 to July 6, 2012. These
documents included the Order and Reasons for Judgment described above.
[5]
On
August 22, 2012, Passport Canada wrote to the Applicant advising her that she was
the subject of an investigation on the basis that she had submitted a passport
application for Adam which contained false or misleading information. This
letter included a questionnaire for return and instructions to immediately
surrender her passport. Passport Canada did not receive a response to this
letter.
[6]
On
November 13, 2012, Passport Canada sent a letter to the Applicant reiterating
the information contained in the August 22 letter. In addition, the letter
provided a list of the 14 court documents submitted by Mr. Simmonds and the
fact that she was also asked by a Passport Canada officer on July 16, 2012,
whether there were other custody, mobility or access court documents pertaining
to Adam and that she replied in the negative.
[7]
On
November 26, 2012, Mr. Simmonds wrote a letter which replied to several
questions from Passport Canada, including whether, and if so, how the Applicant
had Mr. Simmonds sign Adam’s passport, the last time he had contact with the
Applicant, and how he became aware that the Applicant was applying for a
passport for Adam. In addition, Mr. Simmonds provided a chronology of recent
events with regard to his interactions with the Applicant concerning Adam’s
passport.
[8]
On
November 29, 2012, the Applicant wrote to Passport Canada stating that she had
responded to the August 22 letter, and that her response must have not been
received. She sent the questionnaire, and included reference to the July legal
proceedings written by Justice Brown. She also addressed the court documents she
submitted in her application (in part) as follows:
I do admit, that in mid-July when I applied in
person for this passport, that I did give the Justice Stromberg-Stein custody
order. These orders stated joint custody and joint guardianship between both
parties. I was made aware on July 5, 2012 via email of new custody orders.
However these new orders were not signed by either party or filed at the
courthouse at the time I applied in person to the passport office. Because I
had a signed passport application and time was running out for Adam’s vacation
with his father, Aug 13/12, I submitted the Stromberg-Stein custody orders. I
did not want to delay Adam’s vacation with his father and thought that
submitting unsigned and unfilled orders would do such.
[9]
On
January 10, 2013, the Applicant spoke with an investigator at Passport Canada
via telephone, and subsequently submitted a letter which expressed concern over
whether Mr. Simmonds and his lawyer was communicating with Passport Canada and
the sharing of her personal information with third parties.
[10]
On
January 18, 2013, Passport Canada wrote to the Applicant stating that Passport
Canada does not disclose information concerning third parties, and that no new
information had been provided by the Applicant which would require further
investigation.
[10]
[11]
On
February 5, 2013, Passport Canada wrote the Applicant informing her that
passport services were withheld until July 16, 2017. The basis of this decision
was the fact that the Applicant had submitted false or misleading information to
Passport Canada in support of the application to obtain a Canadian Passport on
behalf of her son.
II. Issue
[12]
The
issue raised in the present application is as follows:
A.
Whether
the principles of procedural fairness were violated in the Investigation
conducted by Passport Canada in response to the passport application submitted
by the Applicant.
III. Standard of review
[13]
The
parties agree that the standard of review is correctness (Kamel v Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 338; Dunsmuir v Canada, 2008 SCC 9).
IV. Analysis
[14]
The
Applicant argues that Passport Canada breached its duty of procedural fairness
by failing to provide adequate disclosure of communications with Mr. Simmonds
and his lawyers (citing Kamel v Canada (Attorney General), 2008 FC 338
and Abdi v Canada, 2012 FC 642). The Applicant claims that in not being
able to address allegations made by her estranged spouse, she was prejudiced
unfairly.
[15]
I
must disagree with the Applicant. There is no breach of disclosure requirements
where irrelevant or immaterial facts are not disclosed to the Applicant, or
where there is no reliance on those facts by Passport Canada in making the
decision in question (Slaemen v Canada, 2012 FC 641, at para 37). The
facts relied upon by the Respondent include:
•
The
Applicant submitted a passport application for Adam and only provided two court
documents relating to custody or access;
•
The
Applicant confirmed to a passport officer that she had submitted all documents
pertaining to custody, mobility of, or access to, Adam;
•
The
Applicant had not submitted all documents pertaining to custody or mobility of,
or access to, Adam. Ten other documents existed, including the July 5, 2012
Judgment and the July 6, 2012 Order.
[16]
The
Applicant was made aware of the relevant facts in the Respondent’s November 13,
2012 letter to the Applicant, was given an opportunity to respond, and did not
dispute these facts. While other letters from Mr. Simmonds and his lawyer may
suggest that the Applicant lacks credibility, credibility was not a factor in
the Respondent’s decision.
[17]
There
was no procedural unfairness here. Finally, the Applicant appears to raise a
concern over the “unduly punitive” nature of the period of punishment
prescribed by Passport Canada in her memorandum of fact and law. This issue was
never raised in the Applicant’s Notice of Application, and is not a matter to
be considered in this review (Federal Court Rule 301(e); Republic of Cyprus v International Cheese Council of Canada, 2010 FC 719, at para 48).
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1.
the
Applicant’s application is dismissed;
2.
Costs
to the Respondent fixed in the amount of $500.00.
"Michael D.
Manson"
Email this Content