Digests

Dokmajian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

IMM-1420-02

2003 FCT 85, MacKay J.

28/1/03

14 pp.

Judicial review of decision by delegate of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration determining applicant constituted danger to public pursuant to Immigration Act, ss. 46.01(1)(e), 70(5)--Between October, November 1998 applicant convicted of robbery; sentenced to six months in addition to three months served pre-trial; convicted of obstruction of justice for which received six months consecutive conditional sentence; and possession of property obtained by crime, for which sentenced to three months to be served concurrently-- Ordered deported in 2001--Before appeal heard, Minister's delegate determining applicant danger to Canadian public, thus precluding appeal--(1) Whether new affidavit evidence of applicant inadmissible as new evidence not before Minister's delegate--Despite twice having been given opportunity to make submissions prior to issuance of public danger opinion, applicant had failed to provide information to Minister--In Chedid v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 127 F.T.R. 81 (F.C.T.D.), Court stated parole board decision crucial document that should have been before Minister regardless of whether applicant made submissions in this respect--Chedid distinguished because Minister's representative therein aware decision of parole board not before her--Decision-maker herein unaware of parole board decision concerning applicant--Accordingly, new evidence cannot be considered on present judicial review application-- (2) Whether principles of natural justice oblige Minister to provide reasons in issuing danger opinion--Minister's delegate adopted Ministerial Opinion Report and Request for Ministerial Opinion as reasons for danger opinion directed against applicant--(3) Whether reasons so provided reasonable--In Thompson v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 37 Imm. L.R. (2d) 9 (F.C.T.D.), Court considered notion of "danger to the public" and concluded fact of conviction alone not sufficient basis for danger opinion--"Danger to the public" means present or future danger--Thus, circumstances of each case must provide evidence of person concerned being present or future danger to other persons in Canada--Evidence before Minister's delegate not disclosing clearly expressed reference applicant presenting current and future danger to public in Canada--Nature or seriousness of past offences does not constitute danger to public for purposes of s. 70(5)-- Minister's delegate's opinion unreasonable--Application for judicial review allowed--Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, ss. 46.01(1)(e) (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 14; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 36; 1995, c. 15, s. 9), 70(5).