Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Suleiman, [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.016

• Judge: Gascon, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 02, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.016;2015 FC 891

Can. (M.C.I.) v. Suleiman, [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.016

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for F.T.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.016

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (applicant) v. Zaher Suleiman (respondent)

(T-2374-14; 2015 FC 891; 2015 CF 891)

Indexed As: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Suleiman

Federal Court

Gascon, J.

July 22, 2015.

Summary:

Suleiman entered Canada in 2004 and became a permanent resident. In 2009, he applied for citizenship. The citizenship officer was not satisfied that Suleiman met the residency requirement. In 2014, the matter was referred to a citizenship judge, who held a 2.5 hour hearing. The judge approved Suleiman's application. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application. The court declined Suleiman's request for "special costs" of the application.

Aliens - Topic 2510

Naturalization - General - Duties of citizenship judge (incl. duty re reasons) - Suleiman entered Canada in 2004 and became a permanent resident - In 2009, he applied for citizenship - The citizenship officer was not satisfied that Suleiman met the residency requirement - In 2014, the matter was referred to a citizenship judge, who held a 2.5 hour hearing - The judge approved Suleiman's application - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration applied for judicial review, asserting, inter alia, that the citizenship judge's reasons were inadequate in that they did not show a grasp of the issues raised by the evidence, let alone the concerns raised by the citizenship officer - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The judge explained clearly why he decided that Suleiman met the residency requirement and how he considered the evidence - The focus of judicial review was on the outcome or the decision, itself, and not the process by which that outcome was reached - Reasonableness, not perfection, was the standard - In citizenship matters, reasons for decision were often very brief and did not address all of the discrepancies in the evidence - However, even where the reasons were brief or poorly written, the reviewing court deferred to the decision-maker's evidence weighing and credibility determinations as long as the court was able to understand why the judge made his or her decision - Here, the judge identified the residency test he relied on and addressed the officer's credibility concerns - There were no gaps in the evidence or periods unaccounted for - The reasons were sufficient and adequate - See paragraphs 36 to 45.

Aliens - Topic 2525

Naturalization - Qualifications - Residence - Suleiman entered Canada in 2004 and became a permanent resident - In 2009, he applied for citizenship - The citizenship officer was not satisfied that Suleiman met the residency requirement - In 2014, the matter was referred to a citizenship judge, who held a 2.5 hour hearing - The judge approved Suleiman's application - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration applied for judicial review, asserting, inter alia, that the citizenship judge made a number of incorrect factual findings, rendering the decision unreasonable - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The minor discrepancies identified by the Minister were not material enough to render the decision unreasonable - The Minister's argument on the factual findings invited the court to substitute its view of the evidence for that of the citizenship judge - The judge heard directly from Suleiman and thoroughly reviewed the evidence before concluding that Suleiman had resided in Canada for a sufficient number of days during the period of reference - No evidence contradicted that finding - While there might have been some alleged inconsistencies, they were either immaterial or could be reasonably reconciled within the decision - The judge's conclusion was reasonable - See paragraphs 16 to 35.

Aliens - Topic 2562

Naturalization - Appeals and judicial review - Scope of appeal or review - [See Aliens - Topic 2510 and Aliens - Topic 2525 ].

Aliens - Topic 4105

Practice - Costs - For special reasons - [See Aliens - Topic 4106 ].

Aliens - Topic 4106

Practice - Costs - To or against Minister, Crown, Canada, etc. - Suleiman entered Canada in 2004 and became a permanent resident - In 2009, he applied for citizenship - The citizenship officer was not satisfied that Suleiman met the residency requirement - In 2014, the matter was referred to a citizenship judge, who held a 2.5 hour hearing - The judge approved Suleiman's application - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's application for judicial review was dismissed - At issue was Suleiman's request for costs of the application - Suleiman asserted that the application was "ill-founded and there was an inordinate five-year delay before the citizenship judge adjudicated his citizenship application" - The Federal Court declined to award costs - The threshold for establishing the existence of "special reasons" justifying an award of costs was high - The circumstances here were not similar or close to those situations which had justified an award of costs - Special reasons did not arise merely because the Minister elected to exercise his statutory right to apply for judicial review and was not successful - Nor was the five year delay a sufficient reason where Suleiman had not sought the court's assistance to deal with any prejudice he might have suffered during those five years - See paragraphs 46 to 50.

Cases Noticed:

Pourghasemi, Re (1993), 62 F.T.R. 122; 19 Imm. L.R.(2d) 259 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Hussein v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.003; 2015 FC 88, refd to. [para. 18].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Pereira (2014), 456 F.T.R. 287; 2014 FC 574, refd to. [para. 18].

Atwani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 835; 2011 FC 1354, refd to. [para. 18].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 19].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 19].

Kanthasamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 459 N.R. 367; 2014 FCA 113, refd to. [para. 19].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Safi, [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.028; 2014 FC 97, refd to. [para. 19].

Farag v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 370; 2013 FC 783, refd to. [para. 19].

Aguebor v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vijayan, [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.036; 2015 FC 289, refd to. [para. 20].

Pepaj v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 388; 2014 FC 938, refd to. [para. 20].

Huntley v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 233; 2014 FC 573, refd to. [para. 20].

Martinez-Caro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 391 F.T.R. 138; 2011 FC 640, refd to. [para. 20].

Cepeda-Gutierrez et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 157 F.T.R. 35 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Hassan v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1992), 147 N.R. 317 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. El Bousserghini (2012), 408 F.T.R. 9; 2012 FC 88, refd to. [para. 27].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Pereira (2014), 456 F.T.R. 287; 2014 FC 574, dist. [para. 30].

Guerrero Moreno v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 494; 2011 FC 841, refd to. [para. 31].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 37].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 38].

Driver Iron Inc. v. International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Ironworkers, Local Union No. 720 et al. (2012), 437 N.R. 202; 539 A.R. 17; 561 W.A.C. 17; 2012 SCC 65, refd to. [para. 38].

Komolafe v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 192; 2013 FC 431, refd to. [para. 39].

Abbas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 83; 2011 FC 145, refd to. [para. 40].

El Falah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 730; 2009 FC 736, refd to. [para. 40].

Tlili v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 339; 2014 FC 476, refd to. [para. 40].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Thomas, [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 319; 2015 FC 288, refd to. [para. 41].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Lee (2013), 429 F.T.R. 131; 2013 FC 270, refd to. [para. 41].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Purvis, [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.006; 2015 FC 368, refd to. [para. 41].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Raphaël (2012), 417 F.T.R. 177; 2012 FC 1039, dist. [para. 43].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Jeizan (2010), 386 F.T.R. 1; 2010 FC 323, dist. [para. 44].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Elzubair, [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 176; 2010 FC 298, dist. [para. 44].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Dhaliwal, [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 554; 2008 FC 797, dist. [para. 44].

Aleaf v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 177; 2015 FC 445, refd to. [para. 47].

Ibrahim et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 917; 2007 FC 1342, refd to. [para. 47].

Ndungu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 423 N.R. 228; 2011 FCA 208, refd to. [para. 48].

Counsel:

Christoph Crighton, for the applicant;

Jared Will, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

Law Offices of Jared Will, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 2, 2015, by Gascon, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 22, 2015.