Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20050406

Docket: IMM-9588-03

Citation: 2005 FC 455

Toronto, Ontario, April 6th, 2005                                                                                           

Present:           The Honourable Mr. Justice von Finckenstein                                

BETWEEN:

MUHAMMAD NADEEM

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

                                            REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

(Delivered orally from the bench and subsequently written for precision and clarification)

[1]                The Applicant, Muhammad Nadeem, is a 27 year old Shia from Pakistan. He claims to fear persecution at the hands of Sunni Muslim members of his community.


[2]         On September 27, 2003, the Applicant was provided with his Personal Information Form ("PIF") which he was required to complete and submit to the Refugee Division within 28 days. The day his PIF was due, October 27, 2003, he requested an extension of time to file his PIF, provided notification of counsel and a change of address. The Applicant's counsel requested a two week extension which was denied. The Board received the Applicant's PIF on November 4, 2003.

[3]         On November 6, 2003 a show cause hearing was held to allow the Applicant an opportunity to explain why the Board should not declare his claim abandoned. At the end of the hearing the Board declared the claim abandoned.

[4]         Under Rule 58(3) of the Refugee Protection Rules the Board has to consider the following factors:

58 (3) The division must consider, in deciding if the claim should be declared abandoned, the explanations given by the claimant at the hearing and any other relevant information, including the fact that the claimant is ready to start or continue the proceedings. (underlining added)

[5]         The transcript of the proceedings shows that the member never asked the Applicant (who appeared without counsel) if he was ready to start or continue the proceedings. Instead she aggressively asked him about his financial means, how he came to Toronto and his ability to obtain counsel.


[6]         While the willingness to proceed is not determinative, ( see Markandu v. Canada (M.C.I.) [2004] F.C.J. No. 144) by virtue of Rule 58 (3) this point must be established and considered by the Board.

[7]         Neither the reasons of the Board nor the transcript of the hearing reveal that this point was established. Given that the Applicant appeared without counsel, I don't see how it is implicit (without the question being asked) that he was ready to proceed. Without this being established there is no evidence that the Board considered this point as it required to do.

[8]         Accordingly this application will be allowed

ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that this decision of November 6, 2003 be set aside and the matter be referred back to the Board for reconsideration by a differently constituted panel.

                                                                                           "K. von Finckenstein"

                                                                                  J.F.C.


FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           IMM-9588-03

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          MUHAMMAD NADEEM

Applicant

and

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                      TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                       APRIL 5, 2005

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                                VON FINCKENSTEIN J.

DATED:                                                APRIL 6, 2005

APPEARANCES BY:                      

John Savaglio                                        FOR THE APPLICANT

Robert Bafaro                                       FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          

John Savaglio

Pickering, Ontario                                FOR THE APPLICANT

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada      FOR THE RESPONDENT

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.