Federal Court Decisions

                                

                                

Date: 19981207

Docket: IMM-3068-97

BETWEEN:

    

     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Applicant

     - and -

     BOB SMITH, JANE DOE AND JOHN DOE

     Respondents

                    

     SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR ORDER

LUTFY J.:

    

[1]          The respondents suggest five questions for certification.

[2]          The first issue suggested for certification concerns the distinction between a matter of mixed law and fact and a pure question of fact. This issue was canvassed at some length in Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748. On the basis of Southam, I am satisfied that the issue in this case is one of mixed law and fact. In any event, as stated in my reasons, I would have intervened to set aside the tribunal decision even if the issue were a pure question of fact. Finally, the respondents suggest that the certification of a question would clarify this issue, in the context of state protection, for the immigration bar. I respectfully disagree. This case does not present an appropriate factual basis upon which to resolve the question suggested by the respondents, even if clarification were required.

[3]          The reference to the recent judgment in Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, simply sets out, for reasons of completeness, the conclusion of the Supreme Court of Canada, at paragraph 50 of its reasons, that where the tribunal"s determination presents an error in law, the standard of review is correctness. Neither party in this case suggested that the challenge against the decision of the Convention Refugee Determination Division was based on a pure question of law.

[4]          The second and third questions suggested for certification do not raise, in the context of this proceeding, any legal issue not previously determined in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, Minister of Employment and Immigration v. Satiacum (1989), 99 N.R. 171 (F.C.A.) and Kadenko v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1996), 143 D.L.R. 4th 532 (F.C.A.), concerning the efforts to be made by a refugee claimant to establish the absence of state protection.

[5]          Neither the fourth or fifth questions raises issues relevant to the disposition of this application for judicial review.

[6]          As the respondent has not suggested an issue that would be determinative of the disposition of this proceeding, or of broad significance or general application not previously disposed of by a higher Court, no question will be certified.

    

     Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

December 7, 1998