Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19990730


Docket: IMM-506-99

BETWEEN:

     SURENDA ARUNACHALAM TERESA


Applicant


- and -


THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

     (Delivered orally from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on

     Friday, July 30, 1999)

LINDEN J.

        

[1]      This is an application for judicial review of an immigration officer"s rejection of the sponsored applicant"s request to remain in Canada based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. In the recent case of Mavis Baker v. MCI,1 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a wide-ranging decision dealing with all aspects of the process involved in the consideration of humanitarian and compassionate grounds.

[2]      In my view, pursuant to the standard of reasonableness simpliciter as set out in the Baker case, supra, the immigration officer failed to take sufficiently into account important affidavit and other evidence tendered by the applicant concerning the various names that she, because of the religious sensitivities of her husband, had to utilize. Further, it does not appear that the immigration officer sufficiently considered the social and cultural context under which women may be forced to adopt new or multiple names. The Baker case requires that such evidence now be considered by the immigration officer.

[3]      The immigration officer placed undue weight on the failure of the applicant to supply a translation of a "National Identity Card" which was requested, and which was thought to have been capable of resolving the confusion regarding the applicant"s various names.

[4]      While I recognize that immigration officers do excellent and difficult work, the changing legal landscape now demands even more of them.

[5]      In the result, I would allow the application for judicial review, quash the decision below, and remit the matter back to be decided by a different immigration officer who may rely on existing evidence, or, if thought advisable, admit new evidence by either party to assist in the resolution of this case.

                                 "A.M. Linden"

     JUDGE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

July 30, 1999             


     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-506-99
STYLE OF CAUSE:                      SURENDA ARUNACHALAM TERESA
                             - and -
                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                            

DATE OF HEARING:                  FRIDAY, JULY 30, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY:              LINDEN J.

DATED:                          FRIDAY, JULY 30, 1999

APPEARANCES:                      Mr. I. Francis Xavier

                                 For the Applicant

                             Mr. Godwin Friday

                    

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              I. Francis Xavier

                             Barrister & Solicitor

                             2401 Eglinton Avenue East

                             Suite 210

                             Toronto, Ontario

                             M1K 2M5

                                 For the Applicant

                              Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                 For the Respondent

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date:19990730

                        

         Docket: IMM-506-99

                             Between:

                             SURENDA ARUNACHALAM TERESA

     Applicant

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                        

     Respondent

                    

                            

        

                                                                             REASONS FOR ORDER

                            

                            

    

__________________

1S.C.C. No. 25823 (July 9, 1999).

 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.