Emilian Peter (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent) (IMM-12508-12; 2014 FC 1073) Indexed As: Peter v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) Federal Court Annis, J. November 13, 2014. Summary: An unsuccessful refugee claimant applied for judicial review of a decision by a removal officer not to defer his removal. At issue was whether s. 112(2)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which prohibited a Pre-removal Risk Assessment Protection (PRRA) application from being brought within 12 months after the refugee protection claim was last rejected (i.e., the "PRRA bar" ) was unconstitutional for infringing s. 7 of the Charter. Also at issue was whether the "removals process" (including the removal test) applied by the removal officer in determining whether to grant a deferral under s. 48 of the IRPA was unconstitutional for violating the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter. The Federal Court dismissed the application. The court held that both the PRRA bar and the removals test were in compliance with s. 7 of the Charter. The court also rejected the applicant's challenges to the officer's competency and related issues. Further, the court concluded that the decision of the removal officer was reasonable. Aliens - Topic 1334 Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Appeals or judicial review - Scope of review - At issue was whether a decision by a Canada Border Services Agency removal officer not to defer removal of a refugee pursuant to s. 48 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was reasonable - The Federal Court held that the officer's decision under s. 48 was reviewable on a standard of reasonableness unless it involved a question of law - See paragraph 82. Aliens - Topic 1568 Exclusion and expulsion - Power to detain and deport - Removal officer - A removal officer refused to defer the removal of an unsuccessful refugee claimant (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), s. 48) - The refugee claimant argued that the removal process (including the removal test) was unconstitutional for violating the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter - The Federal Court held that the "removals process" (including the removal test) did not violate s. 7 - The principle against removal of an unsuccessful refugee claimant in the face of alleged unprotected risks, based on the removals process under the IRPA currently in place with a removals test assessing for an exposure to a risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment, was not a principle that was vital or fundamental to our societal notions of justice, such that it deprived the applicant of his rights under the Charter - See paragraphs 128 to 314. Aliens - Topic 1568 Exclusion and expulsion - Power to detain and deport - Removal officer - [See Aliens - Topic 1334]. Aliens - Topic 1583 Exclusion and expulsion - Pre-removal risk assessment - Application for protection (incl. procedure and considerations) - At issue was whether s. 112(2)(b.1) of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which prohibited a Pre-removal Risk Assessment Protection (PRRA) application from being brought within 12 months after the refugee protection claim was last rejected (i.e., the "PRRA bar" ) was unconstitutional for infringing s. 7 of the Charter - The Federal Court held that the PRRA bar was in compliance with s. 7 - See paragraphs 85 to 127. Aliens - Topic 1797 Exclusion and expulsion - Deportation and exclusion of persons in Canada - Deportation or removal order - Execution of - [Aliens - Topic 1568]. Aliens - Topic 1800 Exclusion and expulsion - Deportation and exclusion of persons in Canada - Deportation or removal order - Stay or deferral of (incl. termination of stay) - [See Aliens - Topic 1568]. Civil Rights - Topic 8581.2 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - At issue on this judicial review was whether s. 112(2)(b.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which prohibited a Pre-removal Risk Assessment Protection (PRRA) application from being brought within 12 months after the refugee protection claim was last rejected (i.e., the "PRRA bar" ) was unconstitutional for infringing s. 7 of the Charter - Also at issue was the constitutionality of the "removals process" used to determine whether to defer a refugee's removal from Canada pursuant to s. 48 of the IRPA (Charter, s. 7) - The Federal Court stated that the constitutional issues required a review on a standard of correctness - See paragraphs 81 to 83. Cases Noticed: Savunthararasa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.018; 2014 FC 1074, refd to. [para. 2]. Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422, refd to. [para. 26]. Németh v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2010] 3 S.C.R. 281; 408 N.R. 198; 2010 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 27]. Orelien v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 F.C. 592; 135 N.R. 50 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27]. Nguyen v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1993] 1 F.C. 696; 151 N.R. 69; 100 D.L.R.(4th) 151 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27]. Farhadi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 257 N.R. 158 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 27]. Ragupathy v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2006), 303 F.T.R. 178; 2006 FC 1370, refd to. [para. 28]. Saini v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 4 F.C. 325; 150 F.T.R. 148 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28]. Jayasundararajah v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 770; 195 A.C.W.S.(3d) 224; 2010 FC 1169, refd to. [para. 28]. Arunachalam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 150 F.T.R. 289; 81 A.C.W.S.(3d) 323 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 28]. Wang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 3 F.C. 682; 204 F.T.R. 5; 2001 FCT 148, refd to. [para. 29]. Baron et al. v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2010] 2 F.C.R. 311; 387 N.R. 278; 2009 FCA 81, refd to. [para. 31]. Shpati v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2011), 423 N.R. 309; 343 D.L.R.(4th) 128; 2011 FCA 286, refd to. [para. 31]. R. v. Hape (L.R.), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292; 363 N.R. 1; 227 O.A.C. 191; 2007 SCC 26, refd to.
[para. 34]. De Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005), 345 N.R. 73; 262 D.L.R.(4th) 13; 2005 FCA 436, refd to. [para. 34]. Toth v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2012), 417 F.T.R. 279; 2012 FC 1051, refd to. [para. 38]. Adjei v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 2 F.C. 680; 132 N.R. 24; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 153 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 38]. Yaliniz v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1988), 9 A.C.W.S.(3d) 369; 7 Imm. L.R.(2d) 163 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39]. Salibian v. Ministre de l'emploi et de l'immigration, [1990] 3 F.C. 250; 113 N.R. 123; 73 D.L.R.(4th) 551 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39]. Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84; 280 N.R. 268; 2002 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 40]. Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 40]. Dhurmu v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 301; 219 A.C.W.S.(3d) 188; 2011 FC 511, refd to. [para. 43]. Lin v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2011), 391 F.T.R. 315; 2011 FC 771, refd to. [para. 43]. Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 48]. Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3; 281 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 50]. Rajudeen v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1984), 55 N.R. 129 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 67]. Hussain v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2012), 424 F.T.R. 206; 2012 FC 1544, refd to. [para. 73]. Lippé et autres v. Québec (Procureur général) et autres, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114; 128 N.R. 1; 39 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 74]. R. v. Lippé - see Lippé et autres v. Quèbec (Procureur général) et autres. Say et al. v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2006] 1 F.C.R. 532; 274 F.T.R. 172 (T.D.), affd. (2005), 345 N.R. 340; 2005 FCA 422, leave to appeal refused (2006), 355 N.R. 397 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 74]. Sinnappu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] 2 F.C. 791; 126 F.T.R. 29 (T.D.), affd. (1999), 253 N.R. 234 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 78]. Idahosa v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2009] 4 F.C.R. 293; 385 N.R. 134; 2008 FCA 418, refd to. [para. 79]. Daniel v. Canada (Minister of Citizen and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 241; 156 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1144; 2007 FC 392, refd to. [para. 79]. Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 289, refd to. [para. 79]. New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 83]. Toth v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1988), 86 N.R. 302; 6 Imm. L.R.(2d) 123 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 87]. Cheung et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1993] 2 F.C. 314; 153 N.R. 145; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 214 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 88]. Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1; 107 D.L.R.(4th) 342, refd to. [para. 96]. Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; 452 N.R. 1; 312 O.A.C. 53; 2013 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 99]. Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 60 D.L.R.(4th) 397, refd to. [para. 136].
R. v. Malmo-Levine (D.) et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571; 314 N.R. 1; 191 B.C.A.C. 1; 314 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 74, refd to. [para. 138]. Doré v. Barreau du Québec, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 395; 428 N.R. 146; 2012 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 148]. Sagharichi v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 182 N.R. 398; 42 A.C.W.S.(3d) 494 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 188]. Kadhm v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 140 F.T.R. 286; 77 A.C.W.S.(3d) 157 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 190]. Eve, Re, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 388; 71 N.R. 1; 61 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 273; 185 A.P.R. 273, refd to. [para. 192]. Retnem and Rajkumaar v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1991), 132 N.R. 53; 27 A.C.W.S.(3d) 481 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 215]. Amayo v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1981), 8 A.C.W.S.(2d) 68 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 216]. Mirzabeglui v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1991] F.C.J. No. 50 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 216]. Madelat v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1991), 179 N.R. 94 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 216]. He v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 78 F.T.R. 313; 48 A.C.W.S.(3d) 804 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 216]. Xie v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 75 F.T.R. 125; 46 A.C.W.S.(3d) 708 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 216]. Fathi-Rad v. Canada (Secretary of State) (1994), 77 F.T.R. 41; 47 A.C.W.S.(3d) 822 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 216]. Namitabar v. Ministre de l'emploi et de l'immigration, [1994] 2 F.C. 42; 78 F.T.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 216]. Lerer et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 90 F.T.R. 105; 52 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1331 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 216]. Ali (S.A.) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 119 F.T.R. 258; 66 A.C.W.S.(3d) 942 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 216]. Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.T.R. Uned. 56; 69 A.C.W.S.(3d) 147 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 216]. Kanthasamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 459 N.R. 367; 372 D.L.R.(4th) 539; 2014 FCA 113, refd to. [para. 219]. Li (Y.) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005), 329 N.R. 346; 249 D.L.R.(4th) 306; 2005 FCA 1, refd to. [para. 252]. Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689; 153 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 256]. Maldonado v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1980] 2 F.C. 302; 31 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 287]. Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.020; 2014 FC 651, refd to. [para. 311]. Statutes Noticed: Balanced Refugee Reform Act, S.C. 2010, c. 8, sect. 15(3) [para. 3]. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 84]. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 48(1), sect. 112 [para. 84]; sect. 112(2)(b.1) [para. 3]. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations (Can.), Immigration and Refugee Regulations, SOR/2002-227, sect. 230, sect. 231, sect. 232, sect. 233, sect. 234 [para. 84]. Immigration and Refugee Regulations - see Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Regulations (Can.). United Nations, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 15 [para. 211].
United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 27 [para. 211]. Authors and Works Noticed: Canada, Report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons (2008), c. 1 to 8 [para. 53]. Hathaway, James, The Law of Refugee Status, p. 125 [para. 192]. Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law in Canada, s. 47.4(b) [para. 140]. Hogg, Peter W., The Brilliant Career of Section 7 of the Charter (2012), 58 S.C.L.R.(2d) 58, generally [para. 135]. Stewart, Hamish, Fundamental Justice: Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (2012), pp. 108, 109 [para. 136]; 151 [para. 99]. Counsel: Barbara Jackman and Caitlin Maxwell, for the applicant; Kristina Dragaitis and Amy King, for the respondent; Andrew Brouwer and Richard Wazana, for the intervenor. Solicitors of Record: Jackman, Nazami & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant; William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent; Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor. This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on December 3, 2013, and June 2, 2014, by Annis, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons on November 13, 2014. Editor: Elizabeth M.A. Turgeon Application dismissed. Aliens - Topic 1568 Exclusion and expulsion - Power to detain and deport - Removal officer - At issue was whether a decision by a Canada Border Services Agency removal officer not to defer removal of a refugee pursuant to s. 48 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was reasonable - The Federal Court held that the officer's decision under s. 48 was reviewable on a standard of reasonableness unless it involved a question of law - See paragraph 82. Aliens - Topic 1797 Exclusion and expulsion - Deportation and exclusion of persons in Canada - Deportation or removal order - Execution of - A removal officer refused to defer the removal of an unsuccessful refugee claimant (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), s. 48) - The refugee claimant argued that the removal process (including the removal test) was unconstitutional for violating the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter - The Federal Court held that the "removals process" (including the removal test) did not violate s. 7 - The principle against removal of an unsuccessful refugee claimant in the face of alleged unprotected risks, based on the removals process under the IRPA currently in place with a removals test assessing for an exposure to a risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment, was not a principle that was vital or fundamental to our societal notions of justice, such that it deprived the applicant of his rights under the Charter - See paragraphs 128 to 314. Aliens - Topic 1800
Exclusion and expulsion - Deportation and exclusion of persons in Canada - Deportation or removal order - Stay or deferral of (incl. termination of stay) - A removal officer refused to defer the removal of an unsuccessful refugee claimant (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), s. 48) - The refugee claimant argued that the removal process (including the removal test) was unconstitutional for violating the principles of fundamental justice under s. 7 of the Charter - The Federal Court held that the "removals process" (including the removal test) did not violate s. 7 - The principle against removal of an unsuccessful refugee claimant in the face of alleged unprotected risks, based on the removals process under the IRPA currently in place with a removals test assessing for an exposure to a risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment, was not a principle that was vital or fundamental to our societal notions of justice, such that it deprived the applicant of his rights under the Charter - See paragraphs 128 to 314.