Jaballah (Re) (T.D.) v. Jaballah (Re) (T.D.) [2003] 3 F.C. 85
Date: 20021008
Docket: DES-04-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 1046
BETWEEN:
IN THE MATTER OF a certificate pursuant to
Section 40.1 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985,
c. I-2, now deemed to be under subsection 77(1) of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
AND IN THE MATTER OF the referral of that
certificate to the Federal Court of Canada
AND IN THE MATTER OF Mahmoud JABALLAH
(Procedure under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27,
following an application for protection pursuant to s-s. 79(1))
[1] These reasons concern my disposition of an application on behalf of the respondent, Mr. Jaballah, for:
a) a review, pursuant to s. 79(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ("IRPA");
b) an order pursuant to s. 79(2) of the IRPA, s. 18.1(4) of the Federal Court Act, and s. 24(1) of the Charter, in the nature of:
(i) a declaration or finding that the decision of the Minister pursuant to s. 79(2) has been made and simply failed to be transmitted to the Court as required;
(ii) an order prohibiting the Minister and/or his delegate(s) to take any further steps with respect to the "PRRA";
(iii) an order releasing the respondent from custody;
c) an order (in the nature) of a declaration or finding that ss. 160, et seq. and in particular s. 172 of the IRPA Regulations are ultra vires the clear scheme of the IRPA itself.
The application arises from differences between counsel for the parties concerning the appropriate interpretation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 ("IRPA" or the "Act") and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (the "Regulations") insofar as provisions of the Act and Regulations concern procedures following an application for protection made by the respondent pursuant to s-s. 112(1) of the Act.
BACKGROUND
[2] A summary of the essential background in which the issue arises is this. A certificate was issued in August 2001, pursuant to then s. 40.1 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I-2 as amended, certifying the opinion of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor General of Canada ("the Ministers") that Mr. Jaballah, then and still a claimant for refugee protection, is inadmissible to Canada on specified grounds concerning national security. That certificate was referred to the Court for determination whether it was reasonable in light of the evidence and information filed by the Ministers. Consideration was incomplete when the Immigration Act was repealed and replaced by IRPA, which came into effect on June 28, 2002.
[3] Under s. 190 of IRPA a proceeding under the former Act that is pending or in progress immediately before the coming into force of IRPA is to be governed by the latter Act. Thus, disposition of the proceedings in relation to the certificate filed by the Ministers is now governed by the IRPA.
[4] In accord with s. 190 I deem these proceedings to be under Part I, Division 9 of IRPA and the referral of the certificate of the applicant Ministers to be in accord with s-s. 77(1) of that Act. Further, the security grounds specified by the Ministers' certificate are now reflected by s-s. 34(1)(b), (c) and (f) of IRPA, which I deem to be the relevant grounds on which the certificate is now based.
[5] IRPA sets out a new procedure for a person in Canada named in a certificate, as Mr. Jaballah is pursuant to s-s. 77(1) of the Act, to apply to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for protection in accord with s-s. 112 of the Act. Mr. Jaballah did so, and on his request, pursuant to s-s. 79(1) of IRPA this Court suspended the proceedings with respect to the certificate in order for the Minister to decide the application for protection.
[6] A person in need of protection is defined by s. 97 of IRPA. Since IRPA is recently in force, I reproduce in Annex A to these Reasons, the text or a summary description of those provisions relevant to the issues of interpretation discussed herein, including s. 97.
[7] The Act further provides for resumption of proceedings in this manner: if the application for protection is decided, the Minister shall give notice of the decision to the person who has applied and to the judge, who then shall resume the proceeding and "shall review the lawfulness of the decision of the Minister" (s-s. 79(2)) and "shall...determine whether the certificate is reasonable and whether the decision on the application for protection, if any, is lawfully made" (s-s. 80(1)).
[8] This Court has not had notice from the Minister of his decision in relation to Mr. Jaballah's application for protection, as I would expect in accord with s-s. 79(2). The Court has been advised however, by counsel for Mr. Jaballah that he has received a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), dated August 15, 2002, in response to Mr. Jaballah's application. In this a representative of the Minister concludes his assessment, with reference to relevant sections, including in particular s-s. 97(1) of the IRPA, in the following terms: "it is my opinion that there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would be killed or tortured should he be required to return to Egypt". The assessment is summarized as confirming positively (i.e., "yes"), that Mr. Jaballah faces a risk of torture within subparagraph 97(1)(a), and a risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment within subparagraph 97(1)(b), and that the application for protection is allowed.
[9] Counsel for Mr. Jaballah urges that reading the Act as a whole, in particular ss. 79, 81, 107 and 112, the report, made in response to his application under s-s. 112(1), having now been received by him, the hearing before this Court to determine the reasonableness of the security certificate effectively becomes moot and terminates. Moreover, he urges that s. 160 et seq. and particularly s. 172 of the Regulations, here relied upon by the Minister, are ultra vires as dealing with matters beyond the scope of delegation of regulating authority under the IRPA since they are said to be in conflict with the clear scheme of the Act. On this basis he seeks the relief set out at the commencement of these reasons.
[10] For the Minister, counsel urges a different interpretation of the IRPA, in essence, that the Minister has yet to report to the Court as required pursuant to s-s. 79(2), so that the consideration of the reasonableness of the certificate filed with the Court has not resumed, and consideration of the lawfulness of the Minister's decision on the application for protection has not begun.
[11] It is urged for the Minister that, before his decision is made on the application and a report is made to Mr. Jaballah and the Court, the Act and Regulations require a second step to be taken in accord with subparagraph 113(d)(ii) of the Act. This provision directs that consideration of an application for protection, in a case like Mr. Jaballah's, shall be on the basis of factors set out in s. 97 and "whether the application should be refused because of...the danger that the applicant constitutes to the security of Canada".
[12] In support of the concept of two phases in the decision on an application for protection, counsel for the Minister urges that the Regulations, in Division 4, ss. 160-174 are valid. These deal with procedures applicable when an application for protection is made. Section 172 of the Regulations, the validity of which is disputed by counsel for Mr. Jaballah, provides in part:
|
172. (1) Before making a decision to allow or reject the application of an applicant described in subsection 112(3) of the Act, the Minister shall consider the assessments referred to in subsection (2) and any written response of the applicant to the assessments that is received within 15 days after the applicant is given the assessments.
(2) The following assessments shall be given to the applicant: (a) a written assessment on the basis of the factors set out in section 97 of the Act; and (b) a written assessment on the basis of the factors set out in subparagraph 113(d)(i) or (ii) of the Act, as the case may be. ... |
172. (1) Avant de prendre sa décision accueillant ou rejetant la demande de protection du demandeur visé au paragraphe 112(3) de la Loi, le ministre tient compte des évaluations visées au paragraphe (2) et de toute réplique écrite du demandeur à l'égard de ces évaluations, reçue dans les quinze jours suivant la réception de celles-ci.
(2) Les évaluations suivantes sont fournies au demandeur : a) une évaluation écrite au regard des éléments mentionnés à l'article 97 de la Loi;
b) une évaluation écrite au regard des éléments mentionnés aux sous-alinéas 113d)(i) ou (ii) de la Loi, selon le cas.
... |
[13] If the Court upholds the interpretation of the statutory process urged by counsel for the Minister, the Court is advised by counsel that the process of completing the assessments and forming a final decision in relation to Mr. Jaballah's application may require up to three months. That process is set out mainly, and in some detail, in ss. 160-174 of the Regulations.
Submissions of the parties
[14] At the risk of inadequately expressing the submissions on behalf of Mr. Jaballah, I here set out my understanding of those submissions and of the position of the Ministers concerning interpretation of the Act and the Regulations.
[15] For Mr. Jaballah it is urged that the IRPA provides for two tracks, one leading to determination by the Immigration and Refugee Board, and the other leading to the allowance or disallowance by the Minister of an application for protection. Part 2 of the IRPA provides for "Refugee Protection, Convention Refugees and Persons in need of Protection" under ss. 95-111, and for "Pre-Removal Risk Assessment" under ss. 112-116.
[16] Section 95 provides that refugee protection is conferred when (a) a person is determined to be a Convention refugee or to be in similar circumstances under a visa application and who obtains residency status, temporary or permanent, (b) the Board, i.e. the Immigration and Refugee Board, determines a person to be a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection, or (c), "except in the case of a person described in subsection 112(3), the Minister allows an application for protection". Counsel for Mr. Jaballah argues that s. 95 grants authority for the Board or the Minister to grant protection, but that the exception in subparagraph (c) means that the Minister does not have authority to grant an application for protection in the case of a person described in s-s. 112(3), as Mr. Jaballah is as a person named in a certificate referred to in s- s. 77(1).
[17] Further, for Mr. Jaballah it is urged that consideration of his application for protection, pursuant to subparagraph 113(d)(ii), which provides for persons included in s-s. 112(3) to be considered on the basis of factors set out in s. 97, and, in Mr. Jaballah's case, whether his application should be refused because of the danger he constitutes to the security of Canada, is a matter for consideration of the Board, not the Minister, since the Minister is precluded by subparagraph 95(c) from considering the application for protection made by Mr. Jaballah, a person included in subparagraph 112(3)(d).
[18] On this basis it is urged that there is no basis for continuing consideration by this Court of the certificate of the Ministers concerned. It is said the determination directed by ss. 77 and 80 is moot. Consideration of the balance between Mr. Jaballah's status as a person in need of protection under s. 97 and the threat he poses to the security of Canada under s. 113(d)(ii) is said to be a matter for the Board, not for the Minister, nor is it of interest to this Court. The certificate filed with the Court by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor General of Canada would simply remain outstanding and need not now be determined.
[19] Moreover, in view of the determination now made that Mr. Jaballah is a person in need of protection as defined by s. 97, it is urged in regard to the balancing of factors required by subparagraph 113(1)(d)(ii), the special circumstances required, in light of s. 7 of the Charter, for removal from Canada of Mr. Jaballah are not likely to be established. Those circumstances are referred to by the Supreme Court of Canada in Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 SCC 1 [2002] S.C.J. No. 3, 208 D.L.R. 4th 1. In that case the Court expressed these views, inter alia,
76 The Canadian rejection of torture is reflected in the international conventions to which Canada is a party. The Canadian and international perspectives in turn inform our constitutional norms. The rejection of state action leading to torture generally, and deportation to torture specifically, is virtually categoric. Indeed, both domestic and international jurisprudence suggest that torture is so abhorrent that it will almost always be disproportionate to interests on the other side of the balance, even security interests. This suggests that, barring extraordinary circumstances, deportation to torture will generally violate the principles of fundamental justice protected by s. 7 of the Charter. ...
...
77 ...
...
In Canada, the balance struck by the Minister must conform to the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter. It follows that insofar as the Immigration Act leaves open the possibility of deportation to torture, the Minister should generally decline to deport refugees where on the evidence there is a substantial risk of torture.
78 We do not exclude the possibility that in exceptional circumstances, deportation to face torture might be justified, either as a consequence of the balancing process mandated by s. 7 of the Charter or under s. 1. (A violation of s. 7 will be saved by s. 1 "only in cases arising out of exceptional conditions, such as natural disasters, the outbreak of war, epidemics and the like" .... [citations omitted]. Insofar as Canada is unable to deport a person where there are substantial grounds to believe he or she would be tortured on return, this is not because Article 3 of the CAT directly constrains the actions of the Canadian government, but because the fundamental justice balance under s. 7 of the Charter generally precludes deportation to torture when applied on a case-by-case basis. We may predict that it will rarely be struck in favour of expulsion where there is a serious risk of torture. However, as the matter is one of balance, precise prediction is elusive. The ambit of an exceptional discretion to deport to torture, if any, must await future cases.
[20] At this stage in these proceedings this Court is not concerned with a decision concerning removal of Mr. Jaballah from Canada. If the result of this proceeding is a determination that the certificate of the Ministers is reasonable, one result would be that the determination becomes a removal order (s-s. 81(b)), but that order is stayed with respect to a country or place in respect of which the applicant has been determined to be in need of protection by the Minister's decision (subpara. 114(1)(b)). If circumstances change, the stay of removal is subject to review, and may be cancelled by the Minister (s-s. 114(2)). In my opinion it is premature to consider what may ultimately be determined in these proceedings, or in any proceedings which may follow them. Thus, interesting as the comments in Suresh are, they are not relevant to the issues now before this Court.
[21] There are two further arguments raised by counsel for Mr. Jaballah. In his view, the PRRA completed on behalf of the Minister constitutes the decision the Minister is directed by s-s. 79(2) to make and at this stage the Minister has merely neglected to advise the Court directly of his decision. A declaration to this effect, is sought. Moreover, it is urged that the decision pursuant to subparagraph 113(d) is not for the Minister to make since he is precluded by s. 95(c) from granting an application for protection from someone within subparagraph 112(3)(d).
[22] The last argument on behalf of Mr. Jaballah, is in response to a question concerning the meaning to be given to s-s. 80(1) which directs the Court, after it is advised by the Minister of the decision on the application for protection, to determine whether the certificate of the Ministers' opinion is reasonable and whether the decision of the Minister on the application for protection is lawfully made. It is urged that since s-s. 79(2) directs the Court on resumption of the proceedings only to review the lawfulness of the decision of the Minister, that provision "trumps" or prevails over s-s. 80(1), and the Court's function, if the Minister's decision is lawful, is ended. I am not persuaded that the IRPA is to be read in this way. There is, in my view, no conflict between s-s. 79(2) and s-s. 80(1) in relation to the Court's function in reviewing the lawfulness of the Minister's decision on the application for protection. The latter provision does also specifically reaffirm the task of this Court in considering the reasonableness of the Ministers' certificate, a task directed by s-s. 77(1) to make a determination under s. 80.
[23] For the Crown it is urged that counsel for Mr. Jaballah is avoiding the true interpretation of the IRPA, and is seeking to argue policy and why the Act should be construed as he contends. Counsel for the Minister concentrated argument on those provisions of IRPA, particularly subpara. 113(d)(ii), and s. 172 of the Regulations to support a two-stage procedure for the Minister to decide the application for protection. In counsel's view the construction urged for Mr. Jaballah was unacceptable since it did not reflect the Act and the Regulations as understood by the Minister.
ANALYSIS
[24] After consideration of submissions made when this matter was heard, it is my opinion, with respect to the interpretation proposed by counsel for Mr. Jaballah, that the Court is without authority under IRPA or otherwise to grant the orders sought in his application. While reference is made in Mr. Jaballah's motion to the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 as amended, and to s-s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as sources of authority for the Court to act as requested, neither of those was urged in argument and I am not persuaded the Court should act as requested, particularly since, as I conclude, the relief sought is based on an unacceptable interpretation of IRPA.
[25] I reach that conclusion for the following reasons. I am not persuaded that s. 95 of IRPA vests authority in either the Board or the Minister to grant or dismiss an application for protection. Rather, the Board is vested with authority under ss. 100 and 101 to consider claims for refugee protection, and claims by persons to be in need of protection, when a claim is referred by an immigration officer. The authority for the Minister to grant an application for protection is derived from s-s. 112(1) when an application for protection is made to the Minister. In my opinion, the Minister's authority is not based upon subparagraph 95(1)(c). The latter merely provides that when the Minister allows an application for protection, refugee protection is conferred on the person concerned except in the case of a person described in s-s. 112(3), as Mr. Jaballah is, by subparagraph (3)(d) of s. 112.
[26] Neither s-s. 95(c) or s. 112 specifically designates whether the Minister or the Board, shall determine an application for protection made by a person within s-s. 112(3). As I read the Act s. 112, s-s. (1) provides for an application for protection to be made to the Minister by a person subject to a removal order or named in a certificate under s-s. 77(1), but the application, in certain designated cases, including one from a person named in a certificate, may not result in refugee protection (subpara. 112(3)(d)). Implicitly, a decision upon an application for protection, made to the Minister under s-s. 112(1), is to be made by the Minister. That conclusion is supported by s. 79 which provides for suspension of these proceedings concerning a certificate in order for the Minister to decide an application for protection made under s-s. 112(1). Under s-s. 79(2) these proceedings are to be resumed when "the Minister shall give notice of the decision" in relation to the application for protection made under s-s. 112(1) "and the judge shall review the lawfulness of the decision of the Minister".
[27] In my opinion the scheme of the Act, so far as it is relevant at this stage in these proceedings is this.
(1) Under s-s. 77(1) the Ministers concerned (i.e., of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor General of Canada) may refer a certificate of their opinion, that a foreign national is inadmissible to Canada on grounds of national security, to this Court which then is to make a determination under s. 80.
(2) Section 78 sets out the procedure to be followed by the Court in reaching its determination.
(3) Section 79 directs suspension of the proceedings on the request by the person affected or by the Minister, to permit the Minister to decide an application for protection made under s-s. 112(1).
(4) These proceedings, after suspension, are to resume in accord with s-s. 79(2) when the Minister gives notice, to Mr. Jaballah in this case, and to the judge of this Court of the decision of the Minister on the application for protection.
(5) That decision, on the application for protection, in this case, shall be based on the factors set out in s. 97, which defines a person in need of protection, and also on an assessment whether the application should be refused because of the danger the applicant constitutes to the security of Canada (subpara. 113(d)(ii)).
(6) Upon resuming the proceedings, this Court shall consider the lawfulness of the decision of the Minister, (s-s. 79(2)) and shall determine the reasonableness of the certificate and whether the decision on the application for protection is lawful (s-s. 80(1)).
(7) Subsection 112(1) provides for an application for protection to be made, in accord with Regulations, to the Minister by a person who is subject to a removal order or is described in s-s. 77(1), as Mr. Jaballah is. Certain persons described in s-s. 112(2) may not apply for protection, and by subpara. 95(1)(c) and subpara.112(3)(d) "refugee protection" as provided in s. 95 does not result if the Minister allows an application for protection made by a person, inter alia, described in subpara. 112(3)(d), a person named in a certificate under s-s. 77(1).
(8) The proceedings in relation to the Ministers' certificate deemed filed pursuant to s-s. 77(1), now suspended, are to resume upon advice to the Court, as well as to Mr. Jaballah, of the Minister's decision on the application for protection. I do not consider that notice of his decision has been provided to me, as the judge concerned, by the Minister. The PRRA report by a representative of the Minister has not been sent to the judge by the Minister as he is required to do when his decision is made.
[28] I hesitate to attempt any definitive interpretation of the process to be followed by the Minister in dealing with an application for protection, particularly in light of the prospect that at a future date I may be required to review the lawfulness of the Minister's decision considering the grounds referred to in s-s. 18.1(4) of the Federal Court Act, which are sufficiently broad to include review of questions of law, of fact and of procedure.
[29] On the claim for Mr. Jaballah that ss. 160 et seq. of the Regulations are ultra vires, while argument at the hearing dealt primarily with s. 172, I am not persuaded that section or any other in Part 8, Division 4 of the Regulations, which includes ss. 160 to 174 under the general heading "Pre-Removal Risk Assessment", is ultra vires. The argument for Mr. Jaballah on the validity of these Regulations is based on counsel's interpretation of subparagraph 95(1)(c) of the IRPA, with a limited role for the Minister, in dealing with an application for protection. I am not persuaded by that interpretation as I have indicated. In my opinion an application for protection, made to the Minister in accord with s-s. 112(1), is to be dealt with by the Minister.
[30] In doing so the Minister is bound by relevant provisions of the statute and of the Regulations. The statute specifically provides by s. 116 for regulations relating to the application of Part I, Division 3 of the Act concerning Pre-Removal Risk Assessment, (i.e., ss. 112-116). Section 116 includes authority to provide by regulation "for any matter relating to the application of this Division" including "provisions respecting procedures to be followed with respect to applications for protection...". In my opinion, s. 172 of the Regulations on its face appears to be within the broad grant of regulating authority under s. 116 of the Act and no persuasive argument has been made to determine otherwise.
CONCLUSION
[31] For the foregoing reasons, I dismiss the application for the relief and the orders sought on behalf of Mr. Jaballah.
[32] I do urge that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration complete his assessment of Mr. Jaballah's application for protection and advise Mr. Jaballah and this Court of his decision, as soon as possible. I am concerned, as I expect the Minister will also be, that Mr. Jaballah's situation remains unresolved while he continues to be detained, now for a period of nearly 14 months. I acknowledge that period results in part from the time I required to fully appreciate the information before the Court in Jaballah No. 1, determined by Mr. Justice Cullen in November 1999 when he quashed the first certificate issued by the Ministers, and the information before the Court in this case.
[33] For purposes of record, in view of the change in legislation applicable to these proceedings, this Court by its Order also directs that the style of cause be modified, and be as set out at the commencement of these Reasons and the accompanying Order.
(signed) W. Andrew MacKay
___________________________
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
October 8, 2002.
Annex A
Statutory Provisions from the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27.
| Part 1 - Division 9 Protection of Information |
Partie 1 - Section 9 Examen de Renseignements à Protéger |
|
|
s.77 |
(1) The Minister and the Solicitor General of Canada shall sign a certificate stating that a permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality and refer it to the Federal Court-Trial Division, which shall make a determination under section 80. (2) When the certificate is referred, a proceeding under this Act respecting the person named in the certificate, other than an application under subsection 112(1), may not be commenced and, if commenced, must be adjourned, until the judge makes the determination.
|
(1) Le ministre et le solliciteur général du Canada déposent à la Section de première instance de la Cour fédérale le certificat attestant qu'un résident permanent ou qu'un étranger est interdit de territoire pour raison de sécurité ou pour atteinte aux droits humains ou internationaux, grande criminalité ou criminalité organisée pour qu'il en soit disposé au titre de l'article 80.
2) Il ne peut être procédé à aucune instance visant le résident permanent ou l'étranger au titre de la présente loi tant qu'il n'a pas été statué sur le certificat; n'est pas visée la demande de protection prévue au paragraphe 112(1). |
|
s.78 |
[Judicial Consideration] |
[Examen judiciaire] |
|
s.79 |
(1) On the request of the Minister, the permanent resident or the foreign national, a judge shall suspend a proceeding with respect to a certificate in order for the Minister to decide an application for protection made under subsection 112(1). (2) If a proceeding is suspended under subsection (1) and the application for protection is decided, the Minister shall give notice of the decision to the permanent resident or the foreign national and to the judge, the judge shall resume the proceeding and the judge shall review the lawfulness of the decision of the Minister, taking into account the grounds referred to in subsection 18.1(4) of the Federal Court Act.
|
(1) Le juge suspend l'affaire, à la demande du résident permanent, de l'étranger ou du ministre, pour permettre à ce dernier de disposer d'une demande de protection visée au paragraphe 112(1).
(2) Le ministre notifie sa décision sur la demande de protection au résident permanent ou à l'étranger et au juge, lequel reprend l'affaire et contrôle la légalité de la décision, compte tenu des motifs visés au paragraphe 18.1(4) de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale. |
|
s.80 |
(1) The judge shall, on the basis of the information and evidence available, determine whether the certificate is reasonable and whether the decision on the application for protection, if any, is lawfully made.
(2) The judge shall quash a certificate if the judge is of the opinion that it is not reasonable. If the judge does not quash the certificate but determines that the decision on the application for protection is not lawfully made, the judge shall quash the decision and suspend the proceeding to allow the Minister to make a decision on the application for protection. (3) The determination of the judge is final and may not be appealed or judicially reviewed.
|
(1) Le juge décide du caractère raisonnable du certificat et, le cas échéant, de la légalité de la décision du ministre, compte tenu des renseignements et autres éléments de preuve dont il dispose.
(2) Il annule le certificat dont il ne peut conclure qu'il est raisonnable; si l'annulation ne vise que la décision du ministre il suspend l'affaire pour permettre au ministre de statuer sur celle-ci.
(3) La décision du juge est définitive et n'est pas susceptible d'appel ou de contrôle judiciaire. |
|
s.81 |
(1) If a certificate is determined to be reasonable under subsection 80(1), (a) it is conclusive proof that the permanent resident or the foreign national named in it is inadmissible; (b) it is a removal order that may not be appealed against and that is in force without the necessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing; and (c) the person named in it may not apply for protection under subsection 112(1). |
(1) Le certificat jugé raisonnable fait foi de l'interdiction de territoire et constitue une mesure de renvoi en vigueur et sans appel, sans qu'il soit nécessaire de procéder au contrôle ou à l'enquête; la personne visée ne peut dès lors demander la protection au titre du paragraphe 112(1). |
|
ss. 82 - 94 |
[Detention - and General Provisions] |
[Détention - et Dispositions Générales] |
|
|
Part 2 - Refugee Protection Division 1 - Refugee Protection, Convention Refugees and Persons in Need of Protection |
Partie 2 - Protection des réfugiés Section 1 -Notions D'Asile, de Réfugié et de Personne a Protéger
|
|
s.95 |
(1) Refugee protection is conferred on a person when
|
(1) L'asile est la protection conférée à toute personne dès lors que, selon le cas : a) sur constat qu'elle est, à la suite d'une demande de visa, un réfugié ou une personne en situation semblable, elle devient soit un résident permanent au titre du visa, soit un résident temporaire au titre d'un permis de séjour délivré en vue de sa protection;
c) le ministre accorde la demande de protection, sauf si la personne est visée au paragraphe 112(3).
|
|
s.96 |
[Convention Refugee] |
[Définition de « réfugié » ] |
|
s.97 |
(1) A person in need of protection is a person in Canada whose removal to their country or countries of nationality or, if they do not have a country of nationality, their country of former habitual residence, would subject them personally
(i) the person is unable or, because of that risk, unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country,
(iv) the risk is not caused by the inability of that country to provide adequate health or medical care.
(2) A person in Canada who is a member of a class of persons prescribed by the regulations as being in need of protection is also a person in need of protection. |
(1) A qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et serait personnellement, par son renvoi vers tout pays dont elle a la nationalité ou, si elle n'a pas de nationalité, dans lequel elle avait sa résidence habituelle, exposée :
(ii) elle y est exposée en tout lieu de ce pays alors que d'autres personnes originaires de ce pays ou qui s'y trouvent ne le sont généralement pas,
(iii) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de sanctions légitimes - sauf celles infligées au mépris des normes internationales - et inhérents à celles-ci ou occasionnés par elles,
(iv) la menace ou le risque ne résulte pas de l'incapacité du pays de fournir des soins médicaux ou de santé adéquats.
(2) A également qualité de personne à protéger la personne qui se trouve au Canada et fait partie d'une catégorie de personnes auxquelles est reconnu par règlement le besoin de protection.
|
|
s.98 |
A person referred to in section E or F of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention is not a Convention refugee or a person in need of protection.
|
La personne visée aux sections E ou F de l'article premier de la Convention sur les réfugiés ne peut avoir la qualité de réfugié ni de personne à protéger. |
|
|
Division 2 - Convention Refugees and Persons in Need of Protection |
Section 2 - Réfugiés et Personnes à Protéger |
|
ss. 99-111 |
[Claims for Refugee Protection] |
[Demande d'asile] |
|
|
Division 3 - Pre-Removal Risk Assessment |
Section 3 - Examen des Risques avant Renvoi
|
|
s.112 |
(1) A person in Canada, other than a person referred to in subsection 115(1), may, in accordance with the regulations, apply to the Minister for protection if they are subject to a removal order that is in force or are named in a certificate described in subsection 77(1). (2) [Exceptions]
(3) Refugee protection may not result from an application for protection if the person
(d) is named in a certificate referred to in subsection 77(1). |
(1) La personne se trouvant au Canada et qui n'est pas visée au paragraphe 115(1) peut, conformément aux règlements, demander la protection au ministre si elle est visée par une mesure de renvoi ayant pris effet ou nommée au certificat visé au paragraphe 77(1). (2) [Exception]
(3) L'asile ne peut être confééré au demandeur dans les cas suivants :
(c) il a été débouté de sa demande d'asile au titre de la section F de l'article premier de la Convention sur les réfugiés;
(d) il est nommé au certificat visé au paragraphe 77(1).
|
|
s.113 |
(1) Consideration of an application for protection shall be as follows: (a) an applicant whose claim to refugee protection has been rejected may present only new evidence that arose after the rejection or was not reasonably available, or that the applicant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented, at the time of the rejection;
|
(1) Il est disposé de la demande comme il suit :
(a) le demandeur d'asile débouté ne peut présenter que des éléments de preuve survenus depuis le rejet ou qui n'étaient alors pas normalement accessibles ou, s'ils l'étaient, qu'il n'était pas raisonnable, dans les circonstances, de s'attendre à ce qu'il les ait présentés au moment du rejet;
(b) une audience peut être tenue si le ministre l'estime requis compte tenu des facteurs réglementaires;
(c) s'agissant du demandeur non visé au paragraphe 112(3), sur la base des articles 96 à 98; (d) s'agissant du demandeur visé au paragraphe 112(3), sur la base des éléments mentionnés à l'article 97 et, d'autre part : (i) soit du fait que le demandeur interdit de territoire pour grande criminalité constitue un danger pour le public au Canada,
(ii) soit, dans le cas de tout autre demandeur, du fait que la demande devrait être rejetée en raison de la nature et de la gravité de ses actes passés ou du danger qu'il constitue pour la sécurité du Canada.
|
|
s.114 |
(1) A decision to allow the application for protection has (a) in the case of an applicant not described in subsection 112(3), the effect of conferring refugee protection; and
(b) in the case of an applicant described in subsection 112(3), the effect of staying the removal order with respect to a country or place in respect of which the applicant was determined to be in need of protection.
(2) If the Minister is of the opinion that the circumstances surrounding a stay of the enforcement of a removal order have changed, the Minister may re- examine, in accordance with paragraph 113(d) and the regulations, the grounds on which the application was allowed and may cancel the stay. (3) If the Minister is of the opinion that a decision to allow an application for protection was obtained as a result of directly or indirectly misrepresenting or witholding material facts on a relevant matter, the Minister may vacate the decision. (4) If a decision is vacated under subsection (3), it is nullified and the application for protection is deemed to have been rejected.
|
(1) La décision accordant la demande de protection a pour effet de conférer l'asile au demandeur; toutefois, elle a pour effet, s'agissant de celui visé au paragraphe 112(3), de surseoir, pour le pays ou le lieu en cause, à la mesure de renvoi le visant.
(2) Le ministre peut révoquer le sursis s'il estime, après examen, sur la base de l'alinéa 113d) et conformément aux règlements, des motifs qui l'ont justifié, que les circonstances l'ayant amené ont changé.
(3) Le ministre peut annuler la décision ayant accordé la demande de protection s'il estime qu'elle découle de présentations erronées sur un fait important quant à un objet pertinent, ou de réticence sur ce fait.
(4) La décision portant annulation emporte nullité de la décision initiale et la demande de protection est réputée avoir été rejetée.
|
|
s.115 |
[Principle of Non-refoulement] |
[Principe du non-refoulement] |
|
s.116 |
The regulations may provide for any matter relating to the application of this Division, and may include provisions respecting procedures to be followed with respect to applications for protection and decisions made under section 115, including the establishment of factors to determine whether a hearing is required.
|
Les règlements régissent l'application de la présente section et portent notamment sur la procédure applicable à la demande de protection et à une décision rendue sous le régime de l'article 115, notamment la détermination des facteurs applicables à la tenue d'une audience. |
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: DES-04-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicants
- and -
MAHMOUD JABALLAH
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MacKAY
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Donald MacKintosh
Mr. David Tindale
For the Solicitor General of Canada
Mr. Robert Batt
Ms. Marthe Beaulieu
For the Minister of Citizenship & Immigration
Mr. Rocco Galati
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Rocco Galati
Barrister & Solicitor
Galati,Rodrigues & Associates
Barristers and Solicitors
637 College Street Toronto, Ontario M6G 1B5 For the Respondent
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Applicants