Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Kahlon, 2005 FC 1000

• Judge: Tremblay-Lamer, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 12, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2005 FC 1000;(2005), 278 F.T.R. 254 (FC)

Can. v. Kahlon (2005), 278 F.T.R. 254 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. AU.027

Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (applicant) v. Pargat Singh Kahlon (respondent)

(IMM-3443-05; 2005 FC 1000)

Indexed As: Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Kahlon

Federal Court

Tremblay-Lamer, J.

July 19, 2005.

Summary:

Kahlon obtained protected person status as a Convention refugee on the basis that his daughter was suspected of being acquainted with a Sikh militant. The daughter later admitted that, inter alia, that she did not know the militant. An application to vacate was brought against Kahlon based on his daughter's admissions. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board issued a summons ordering that an immigration officer appear and bring with him the daughter's immigration file. The Minister sought to cancel the summons. The Board denied the motion. The Minister sought judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application, quashed the Board's decision and referred the matter back for re-determination by a differently constituted panel in a manner consistent with the court's reasons.

Aliens - Topic 1334

Admission, refugee protection, convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Appeals or judicial review - Scope of review - Kahlon obtained protected person status as a Convention refugee - An application to vacate was brought against Kahlon based on certain admissions made by his daughter - The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (RPD) issued a summons ordering that an immigration officer appear and bring with him the daughter's immigration file - The Minister sought to cancel the summons - The RPD denied the motion - The Minister sought judicial review - The Federal Court held that reasonableness simpliciter was the most appropriate standard of review - See paragraphs 17 to 26.

Aliens - Topic 4064

Practice - Judicial review and appeals - Judicial review - Time for - Kahlon obtained protected person status as a Convention refugee - An application to vacate was brought against Kahlon based on certain admissions made by his daughter -The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (RPD) issued a summons ordering that an immigration officer appear and bring with him the daughter's immigration file - The Minister sought to cancel the summons - The RPD denied the motion - The Minister sought judicial review - The Federal Court held that the application was not premature - Interlocutory rulings were not ordinarily open to judicial review, unless there were special circumstances - Once the summons was performed, any damage to the daughter's privacy that was done, could not be corrected - See paragraphs 10 to 16.

Aliens - Topic 4094

Practice - Hearings - Witnesses (incl. compellability, subpoenas, etc.) - Kahlon obtained protected person status as a Convention refugee - An application to vacate was brought against Kahlon based on certain admissions made by his daughter -The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (RPD) issued a summons ordering that an immigration officer appear and bring with him the daughter's whole immigration file - The Minister sought to cancel the summons - The RPD denied the motion - On judicial review, the Federal Court held that the Board's decision was unreasonable - Only some of the documents in the daughter's immigration file were "clearly necessary" for the hearing - The RPD failed to consider the daughter's privacy interests - The summons was too broad - See paragraphs 27 to 47.

Cases Noticed:

Zündel v. Citron et al., [2000] 4 F.C. 255; 256 N.R. 125 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Zündel v. Canadian Human Rights Commission - see Zündel v. Citron et al.

Szczecka v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (1993), 170 N.R. 58; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 333 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al. (2000), 188 F.T.R. 85 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 1].

Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Canada 3000 Airlines Ltd. et al., [1999] F.T.R. Uned. 271 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 1].

Minister of National Revenue v. Schnurer Estate, [1997] 2 F.C. 545; 208 N.R. 339 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 1].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al. (2001), 270 N.R. 399 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 13].

Cannon v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Assistant Commissioner), [1998] 2 F.C. 104; 139 F.T.R. 91 (T.D.), dist. [para. 13].

Temahagali et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 198 F.T.R. 127 (T.D.), dist. [para. 13].

Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd. et al. v. Canadian Air Line Pilots Association et al., [1988] 2 F.C. 493; 84 N.R. 81 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170, refd to. [para. 17].

Dr. Q. v. College of Physicians and Surgeons (B.C.) - see Dr. Q., Re.

Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Syndicat des employés de production du Québec et de l'Acadie, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 412; 55 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 18].

Sutton v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission (1994), 74 F.T.R. 284 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207, refd to. [para. 26].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 28].

Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3; 295 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 34].

Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General) - see Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al.

Lavigne v. Commissioner of Official Languages (Can.) et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 773; 289 N.R. 282, refd to. [para. 36].

A.M. v. Ryan, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157; 207 N.R. 81; 85 B.C.A.C. 81; 138 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 37].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 40].

Dalgleish v. Basu, [1974] S.J. No. 245 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 41].

Wal-Mart Canada Corp. v. Labour Relations Board (Sask.) et al. (2004), 257 Sask.R. 12; 342 W.A.C. 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Ian Demers, for the applicant;

Stewart Istvanffy, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

Stewart Istvanffy, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on July 12, 2005, by Tremblay-Lamer, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 19, 2005.