Date: 20000601
Docket: A-110-98
| MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, JUNE 1, 2000 |
DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
Between:
GURVINDER SINGH SANDHU,
Appellant,
- AND -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA,
Respondent.
JUDGMENT
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL. B.
Date: 20000601
Docket: A-110-98
DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
Between:
GURVINDER SINGH SANDHU,
Appellant,
- AND -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA,
Respondent.
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec on Thursday, June 1, 2000
Judgement from the bench at Montréal, Quebec on Thursday, June 1, 2000
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 20000601
Docket: A-110-98
DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
Between:
GURVINDER SINGH SANDHU,
Appellant,
- AND -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal,
Quebec, Thursday, June 1, 2000)
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] In the judgment on review, which is reported at (1998), 149 F.T.R. 83, Dubé J. certified the following question, which he would have answered in the negative:
| Is the Refugee Division required to consider Article 3 of the Convention against Torture concerning the expulsion, return or extradition of a person in order to determine whether a claimant is a Convention refugee? |
[2] In our opinion, Dubé J. was right to conclude that art. 3 of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which reads as follows:
| 1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. |
| 2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. |
is concerned with the return stage, and accordingly a stage of the process which is subsequent to the stage at which refugee status is determined by the Refugee Division (see Barrera v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (C.A.), [1993] 2 F.C. 3).
[3] Additionally, relying on Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, counsel for the appellant sought in his oral submission to raise arguments which did not appear in his memorandum of fact and law, and which moreover did not relate to the question certified.
[4] Baker undoubtedly broadened the scope of appeal when there is a certified question, but surely not to the point of overturning the elementary rules of pleadings on appeal, which require that counsel not raise at the hearing arguments which he did not raise in his memorandum of fact and law.
[5] The appeal will be dismissed.
Certified true translation
Martine Brunet, LL. B.
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20000601
Docket: A-110-98
BETWEEN:
GURVINDER SINGH SANDHU,
Appellant,
- AND -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
|
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| STYLE OF CAUSE: GURVINDER SINGH SANDHU, |
Appellant,
AND
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND |
IMMIGRATION OF CANADA,
Respondent.
| PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec |
| DATE OF HEARING: June 1, 2000 |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J. |
APPEARANCES:
| Jean-François Bertrand for the appellant |
Jocelyne Murphy and for the respondent
Claude Provencher
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
BERTRAND, DESLAURIERS for the appellant
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content