Docket: IMM-8106-13
Citation:
2015 FC 342
Toronto, Ontario, March 18,
2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
NIRMAL KUMAR
GANAPATHY
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
This is a judicial review of a decision of
Citizenship and Immigration Canada dated December 2, 2013 wherein the
Applicant’s application for an In-Canada Spousal Sponsorship for a Temporary
Resident Permit was refused on the grounds of inadmissibility for criminality.
[2]
The Applicant came to Canada from India in 2006 under a study permit. He made a refugee claim in 2010 which he withdrew in
2012.
[3]
Early in 2009, the Applicant was charged with
Driving Under the Influence (“DUI”). Later that year, the Applicant married a
Canadian woman. In 2010, the Applicant was convicted of the DUI offence. He
was fined $1,000.00 and his driver’s license was suspended for a period of
time. The charge, however, was one that has the possibility of a sentence such
that it attracted the criminality provisions of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act (“IRPA”), S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 36(2)(a).
[4]
The application under review is the third
attempt by the Applicant for In-Canada Spousal Sponsorship. The first was
rejected; the Applicant sought judicial review, the Minister’s lawyers agreed
to the send it back; the second was set aside by Citizenship and Immigration
itself; the third is the subject of the current proceedings.
[5]
Throughout, the Applicant has been faced with
the difficulty presented by his previous conviction. In the present
application, the Applicant provided evidence as to his efforts made to
rehabilitate his drinking problem and evidence that his was wife was pregnant.
[6]
As is usual in cases of this kind, the reasons
take the form of notes made by the Officer to the file, or FOSS notes. Those
reasons indicate that the Officer was aware of the Applicant’s conviction, his
marriage, his rehabilitation and his expectations of a child. They also
indicate that the Officer was aware of the stress experienced by the Applicant
and his wife.
[7]
Applicant’s Counsel argues that the notes fail
to provide a fulsome explanation as to the reasoning of the Officer in coming
to the conclusion to reject the application. Despite this able argument and
the insistence of Counsel that this was not a situation such as that which the
Supreme Court of Canada considered in Newfoundland and Labrador Nurse’s
Union (Treasury Board), 2011 SCC 62, I find that it is precisely a
situation contemplated by that case.
[8]
That decision makes it clear that it is not
required of a person such as the decision maker here to provide perfect reasons
that would satisfy the most critical jurists. As the Court stated in Newfoundland
Nurses, supra, adequacy of reasons is not a stand-alone basis for
quashing a decision. It is sufficient if, in the context of the matter as a
whole, that the reasons together with the outcome, show that the case falls
within the range of possible reasonable outcomes. The Court must respect the
decision-making process of administrative bodies both as to the facts and the
law.
[9]
I am satisfied that the notes demonstrate that
the Officer did consider and gave ample regard to the relevant factors. The
Applicant simply disagrees with the result. The result is, I find however,
within the range of possible reasonable outcomes.
[10]
The application will be dismissed. No party
requested a certified question.
Email this Content