Nguyen v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-3538-94
Reed J.
13/11/96
13 pp.
Applicants seeking show cause order requiring respondent to appear, explain why should not be held in contempt of Court-Alleging respondent acting so as to impair authority, dignity of Court-Applicant leaving Vietnam by boat with wife, children May 19, 1989-Arriving in Hong Kong where screened out under Hong Kong refugee determination process, confined to camps-On June 14, 1989 International Conference on Indochinese Refugees adopting Draft Declaration and the Comprehensive Plan of Action (Plan), approving process whereby individuals determined to be refugees by country of first asylum-Operating retroactively to June 1988 in so far as Hong Kong concerned-Applicant eligible for sponsorship for admission to Canada-Sponsorship application filed September 7, 1989-Application for order compelling respondent to process sponsorship application allowed on appeal-Subsequent to interview for purpose of processing sponsorship application, application for permanent residence in Canada denied on basis would not be able to establish himself, family successfully in Canada, no humanitarian, compassionate grounds warranting favourable decision as applicant, family in same position as everyone else in closed camps-Decision set aside on grounds applicant not given adequate notice of interview; taking into account irrelevant considerations (floodgates effect)-After new interview, application denied for same reasons-Letter from Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to Minister of Foreign Affairs stating application for permanent resident status processed under provisions of Plan-Applicant arguing if meaning first processing of sponsorship application, immigration official gave incorrect information to Court when said on cross-examination on affidavit Plan not playing any role in decision-If meaning second processing, contrary to Gibson J.'s direction as to what should be taken into consideration-Application dismissed-Letter in form of chronological narrative-Containing errors, but if accurate, statement relied upon ambiguous as to whether applies to first or second processing of sponsorship application-Burden of proof in contempt proceeding "beyond a reasonable doubt"-Applicants' evidence standing on its own not establishing prima facie case of contempt, test required to be met for issuance of show cause order-No award of costs, not because of notice or lack thereof, but because motion for show cause order not frivolous as based on ambiguous, sometimes erroneous, letter signed by respondent-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 355.