Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Pereira v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )

IMM-1395-96

Cullen J.

24/2/97

9 pp.

Application for judicial review of Minister's decision applicant constituted danger to Canadian public-Applicant arrived in Canada in 1974 as landed immigrant, never applied for Canadian citizenship-Married and divorced, one son-Attacked ex-wife on two occasions-Convicted of sexual assault with weapon, administration of drug for purpose of having sexual intercourse, and of sexual assault-Determined dangerous person on basis of above crimes-Released on parole, on condition attend psychiatric counselling-Psychiatrist's report indicating assaults result of isolated disturbance in applicant's life: refusal to accept marriage over-Parole report indicating little, if any, risk of re-offence-Application allowed-Minister erred in determining applicant danger to public-Minister stated no reason for conclusion community in general would be placed at risk by applicant's continuing residence in Canada-Minister's decision based on report concluding, given similar situation (torpid marital breakdown situation with woman who had child by him), applicant would reoffend in similar manner-Does not seem Minister sufficiently turned mind to question of whether applicant constituted danger to "public"-Critical issue whether psychiatric and parole reports, not included in report before Minister, properly before Court-Although Court should not take into account evidence not before original decisionmaker, documents crucial to question of whether applicant danger to public and evidence should have been enquired after-Therefore, applicant's case ought to be sent back to Minister for redetermination in light of, at minimum, evidence contained in those two documents-Minister also erred in interpretation of "danger" as Minister's comments refer to "abhorrent" nature of crimes, and not to danger posed-Minister ordered to rescind opinion rendered, and matter referred back to Minister for redetermination in light of evidence brought before Court, and which ought to have been before Minister in first place-Mandamus issued directing Minister not to execute deportation order against applicant.

 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.