Date: 20001205
Docket: IMM-5200-99
Between :
HENRY GEORGE SIDARICK
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J. :
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of Francine Trottier Savaria, Immigration Counsellor (herein the officer), Citizenship and Immigration Canada, dated September 29, 1999, refusing the applicant's request for ministerial exemption and stating that he must submit his application for permanent residence at a Canadian post abroad as required by subsection 9(1) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 (the Act).
[2] The applicant is a citizen of the United States of America (the USA). He was born on October 13, 1954. He arrived in Canada with a visitor's visa on October 19, 1996. On April 20, 1998, the applicant filed an application for ministerial exemption on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which was refused on September 29, 1999. On October 25, 1999 the applicant filed an application for leave and for judicial review.
[3] The applicant also claimed refugee status on October 21, 1999. His claim was refused by the Immigration and Refugee Board on May 9, 2000 on the basis that he had not established that the US Government was unable to provide him with the needed medical services and that he could not obtain protection from this country.
[4] In Baker v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, L'Heureux-Dubé J. determined, at pages 857 to 858, that the appropriate standard of review for decisions made under subsection 114(2) of the Act and section 2.1 of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172, is reasonableness simpliciter:
| These factors must be balanced to arrive at the appropriate standard of review. I conclude that considerable deference should be accorded to immigration officers exercising the powers conferred by the legislation, given the fact-specific nature of the inquiry, its role within the statutory scheme as an exception, the fact that the decision-maker is the Minister, and the considerable discretion evidenced by the statutory language. Yet the absence of a privative clause, the explicit contemplation of judicial review by the Federal Court - Trial Division and the Federal Court of Appeal in certain circumstances, and the individual rather than polycentric nature of the decision, also suggest that the standard should not be as deferential as "patent unreasonableness". I conclude, weighing all these factors, that the appropriate standard of review is reasonableness simpliciter. |
[5] At the outset, I agree with the respondent that the officer's notes satisfy the requirement for reasons in this case and that they can be taken to be the reasons for her decision.
[6] The applicant's fundamental concern in the present case is that he will suffer emotional, psychological and financial hardship if required to leave Canada for the USA. He claims he would be unable to provide for his basic needs in that country and would be unable to obtain essential medical services. Although I have much sympathy for the applicant, I cannot find any evidence on file which supports his allegations that the USA cannot assist him in his special need and that it cannot afford him protection. In my opinion, contrary to the applicant's submissions, this issue was in fact addressed by the officer in her notes where she wrote:
| Il est arrivé ici comme touriste pour visiter ses parents pour quelque temps. Le requérant a fait une rechute de sa maladie "la schizophrénie" et a dû être hospitalisé. Il est arrivé en octobre 96 et a été hospitalisé du 5.12 au 19.12.97 donc + 1 an après son arrivée. |
| Il allègue aussi que lorsqu'il a voulu retourner au Rockland Psychiatric Centre à New York, là où il habitait depuis 1989 on lui a fait savoir qu'il avait perdu sa place. Une lettre datée du 19.08.99 dudit centre indique plutôt que M. Sidarick a choisi de déménager à Montréal pour être plus près de ses parents et que depuis quelques années ils ne prennent que les patients référés par des partenaires ou organismes désignés. |
| Je crois que M. Sidarik recevra sûrement l'assistance des services sociaux lorsqu'il retournera aux Etats-Unis puisqu'il est citoyen américain et que ceux-ci donnent un soutien à leur citoyen comparable à celui que le Canada offre au citoyen canadien. Lorsqu'il était au Canada et qu'il a fait sa rechute le pays lui a offert les soins hospitaliers afin de le soigner alors lorsqu'il n'avait aucun statut. Alors je crois que les Etats-Unis le prendront en charge à son retour. Il a vécu 10 ans en institution pendant que sa mère était au Canada et son père les dernières années. |
| M. Sidarick ne peut travailler, ne peut s'intégrer à la collectivité et n'a aucun revenu pour subvenir à ses besoins. Le fait de ne pas avoir de place dans une institution aux Etats-Unis est une situation dont il est responsable. |
[7] On the basis of the evidence before her, I believe it was reasonable for the officer to conclude that the hardship discussed in Baker, supra, had not been established by the applicant in the present case.
[8] For all the above reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 5, 2000