Date: 20050405
Docket: IMM-1318-04
Citation: 2005 FC 445
Ottawa, Ontario, this 5th day of April, 2005
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
BETWEEN:
JOSE LUIS ROSADO-SICARD
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] Mr. Jose Luis Rosado-Sicard is a permanent resident of Canada, but a citizen of the Dominican Republic. Based on several convictions for drug trafficking, the Immigration and Refugee Board found Mr. Rosado-Sicard inadmissible to Canada under s. 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (relevant enactments are set out in an Annex). The Board ordered Mr. Rosado-Sicard to be deported from Canada, as it was bound to do according to the terms of s. 45(d) of the Act.
[2] Mr. Rosado-Sicard raised a number of constitutional issues before the Board. The Board determined that it had the jurisdiction to rule on those issues and held that:
1. A deportation order engages the affected person's liberty interests protected under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canda Act (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.
2. The process by which the deportation order is issued does not breach the principles of fundamental justice guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter. In particular, the absence of a hearing at which all the circumstances of the case could be evaluated does not violate s. 7.
3. The applicable provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are not overly broad.
4. The provisions of the Act do not violate international law, in particular, articles 13 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
[3] Mr. Rosado-Sicard argues that the Board erred when it concluded that the process leading to the deportation order against him does not offend the Charter or international law. He asks me to overturn the Board's decision and order a new hearing.
[4] However, at the hearing of this application for judicial review, counsel for Mr. Rosado-Sicard conceded that the issues before me had already been decided by my colleague, Mr. Justice Frederick Gibson in Powell v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. No. 1538 (F.C.) (QL). Further, Mr. Justice Luc Martineau came to like conclusions in a case dealing with s. 64(2) of the Act in Martin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.C.J. No. 83 (F.C.) (QL). I have reviewed those decisions, as well as the decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal in Romans v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1416 (F.C.A.) (QL) and Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. No. 366 (F.C.) (QL), and the Supreme Court of Canada's judgment in Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711. As I read them, all of those decisions run counter to Mr. Rosado-Sicard's arguments before me.
[5] I am satisfied, therefore, based on my review of the relevant case law, that the decision of the Board was correct. I need not say more, given that questions of general importance were certified both by Justice Gibson in Powell, above, and Justice Martineau in Martin, above. I will certify the same questions as were stated by Justice Gibson:
1. Does the issuance of a deportation order pursuant to paragraph 45(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 against a permanent resident of Canada convicted of criminal offences and punished by a term of imprisonment of 2 years or more, and the removal scheme enacted under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for such a person as a whole, engage liberty interests in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, does the statutory scheme enacted under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including the removal provision of paragraph 45(d), for the deportation of a permanent resident from Canada convicted of a criminal offence and punished by a sentence of two years or more, on the particular facts of this matter, comply with the requirements of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, fundamental justice?
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT IS that:
1. The application for judicial review is dismissed.
2. The following questions of general importance are certified:
1. Does the issuance of a deportation order pursuant to paragraph 45(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 against a permanent resident of Canada convicted of criminal offences and punished by a term of imprisonment of 2 years or more, and the removal scheme enacted under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for such a person as a whole, engage liberty interests in section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
2. If the answer to the first question is yes, does the statutory scheme enacted under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including the removal provision of paragraph 45(d), for the deportation of a permanent resident from Canada convicted of a criminal offence and punished by a sentence of two years or more, on the particular facts of this matter, comply with the requirements of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, fundamental justice?
"James W. O'Reilly"
Judge
Annex
| Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27
Serious criminality 36. (1) A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for (a) having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than six months has been imposed;
Decision 45. The Immigration Division, at the conclusion of an admissibility hearing, shall make one of the following decisions:
[...]
(d) make the applicable removal order against a foreign national who has not been authorized to enter Canada, if it is not satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible, or against a foreign national who has been authorized to enter Canada or a permanent resident, if it is satisfied that the foreign national or the permanent resident is inadmissible.
64. (1) No appeal may be made to the Immigration Appeal Division by a foreign national or their sponsor or by a permanent resident if the foreign national or permanent resident has been found to be inadmissible on grounds of security, violating human or international rights, serious criminality or organized criminality.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), serious criminality must be with respect to a crime that was punished in Canada by a term of imprisonment of at least two years.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 Life, liberty and security of person
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171
Article 13
An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.
Article 17 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
|
|
Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés, L.C. 2001, ch. 27
Grande criminalité 36. (1) Emportent interdiction de territoire pour grande criminalité les faits suivants_: a) être déclaré coupable au Canada d'une infraction à une loi fédérale punissable d'un emprisonnement maximal d'au moins dix ans ou d'une infraction à une loi fédérale pour laquelle un emprisonnement de plus de six mois est infligé;
Décision 45. Après avoir procédé à une enquête, la Section de l'immigration rend telle des décisions suivantes_:
...
d) prendre la mesure de renvoi applicable contre l'étranger non autorisé à entrer au Canada et dont il n'est pas prouvé qu'il n'est pas interdit de territoire, ou contre l'étranger autorisé à y entrer ou le résident permanent sur preuve qu'il est interdit de territoire.
64. (1) L'appel ne peut être interjeté par le résident permanent ou l'étranger qui est interdit de territoire pour raison de sécurité ou pour atteinte aux droits humains ou internationaux, grande crimilalité ou criminalité organisée, ni par dans le cas de l'étranger, son répondant.
(2) L'interdiction de territoire pour grande criminalité vise l'infraction punie au Canada par un emprisonnement d'au moins deux ans.
Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, Partie I de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, édictée comme l'annexe B de la Loi de 1982 sur le Canada, 1982, ch. 11 (R.-U.) Vie, libertéet sécurité
7. Chacun a droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la sécurité de sa personne; il ne peut être porté atteinte à ce droit qu'en conformité avec les principes de justice fondamentale.
Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques, adopté et ouvert à la signature, à la ratification et à l'adhésion par l'Assemblée générale dans sa résolution 2200 A (XXI) du 16 décembre 1966
Article 13
Un étranger qui se trouve légalement sur le territoire d'un Etat partie au présent Pacte ne peut en être expulsé qu'en exécution d'une décision prise conformément à la loi et, à moins que des raisons impérieuses de sécurité nationale ne s'y opposent, il doit avoir la possibilité de faire valoir les raisons qui militent contre son expulsion et de faire examiner son cas par l'autorité compétente, ou par une ou plusieurs personnes spécialement désignées par ladite autorité, en se faisant représenter à cette fin.
Article 17
1. Nul ne sera l'objet d'immixtions arbitraires ou illégales dans sa vie privée, sa famille, son domicile ou sa correspondance, ni d'atteintes illégales à son honneur et à sa réputation.
2. Toute personne a droit à la protection de la loi contre de telles immixtions ou de telles atteintes.
|
|
|
|
|
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1318-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: JOSE LUIS ROSADO-SICARD v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ON
DATE OF HEARING: January 25, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE O'REILLY
DATED: April 5, 2005
APPEARANCES BY:
Ronald Poulton FOR THE APPLICANT
Michael Butterfield FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MAMANN & ASSOCIATES FOR THE APPLICANT
Barristers & Solicitors
74 Victoria St., Suite 303
Toronto, ON M5C 2A5
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, ON FOR THE RESPONDENT