Solis v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-4898-96
Campbell J.
19/5/98
17 pp.
Application for judicial review of opinions rendered by Minister's delegate finding applicant to be danger to public under Immigration Act, ss. 46.01(1)(e)(iv), 53(1)(d), 70(5)-Applicant came to Canada with family in 1986 from Guatemala-Granted landed immigrant status in November 1990-Since 1992, applicant convicted of various criminal offences-Delegate of Minister determined applicant constituted danger to public under each of noted provisions-Due process issues including deficiency of notice and documentation, submissions ignored-Policy of full disclosure appropriate, consistent with due process requirements, but whether deficiency concerns raised provide ground upon which Court should exercise discretion depends on facts of case-No weight given to deficiency argument-On danger to public issue, reading of 34 pages of material sent to applicant leaving little doubt as to points of concern to be addressed-Given obviousness of issues needed to be addressed in response to danger notice, applicant not deprived of making full answer by not receiving opinion-Linkage between facts of case, possibility of public danger obvious in documents provided as clearly suggesting how applicant might be considered public danger-Apart from lack of argument properly cited in "Request for Minister's Opinion", Reviewing Officer did go to some length to consider country conditions-No weight given to argument related to submissions ignored-Immigration Act, s. 70(5) not offending Charter of Rights, ss. 6, 7, 12, 15-Whether applicant could take advantage of s. 6 right depending on whether, as permanent resident, he is "citizen of Canada"-Decision in Williams v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] 2 F.C. 646 (C.A.) answering "No" to certified question as to whether Immigration Act, s. 70(5) engages interests affecting liberty and/or security of person under Charter of Rights, s. 7-No connection between issuance of danger opinion and cruel and unusual treatment as term used in Charter of Rights, s. 12-Analysis under Charter, s. 15(1) involving two steps-First, claimant must show denial of "equal protection" or "equal benefit" of law, as compared with some other person-Second, claimant must show denial constitutes discrimination-No possibility of second stage argument succeeding-Application dismissed-Two questions certified-Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], ss. 6, 7, 12, 15-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, ss. 46.01 (as enacted by R.S.C, 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 14; S.C. 1992, c. 1, s. 73, c. 49, s. 36; 1995, c. 15, s. 9), 53(1)(d) (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 17; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 43; 1995, c. 15, s. 12), 70(5) (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 18; S.C. 1995, c. 15, s. 13).