Celise v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 642

JudgeMosley, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateMay 13, 2015
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations2015 FC 642;(2015), 481 F.T.R. 144 (FC)

Celise v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 481 F.T.R. 144 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.029

Lucianna Celise (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-3821-14; 2015 FC 642)

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

Federal Court

Mosley, J.

May 19, 2015.

Summary:

The applicant, a citizen of St. Lucia, applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. An immigration officer rejected the application. The applicant applied for judicial review, arguing that the officer erred in his analysis of the best interests of the applicant's child who was a Canadian citizen.

The Federal Court dismissed the application and certified the following question: "In a best interests of the child analysis, is an Officer required first to explicitly establish what the child's best interests are, and then to establish the degree to which the child's interests are compromised by one potential decision over another, in order to show that the Officer has been alert, alive and sensitive to the best interests of the child?"

Aliens - Topic 4

Definitions and general principles - Children - [See Aliens - Topic 1206 ].

Aliens - Topic 1206

Admission - Immigrants - General - Upon compassionate or humanitarian grounds - Celise, a citizen of St. Lucia, had a three year old child who was born in Canada - An immigration officer rejected Celise's application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds - Celise applied for judicial review, arguing that the officer erred when he failed to apply the test from Williams v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (FC 2012) in assessing the best interests of the child (BIOC) - Williams provided that an officer had to establish "first what is in the child's best interest, second the degree to which the child's interests are compromised by one potential decision over another" and third "the weight that this factor should play in the ultimate balancing of positive and negative factors assessed in the application" - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The Williams test was not required by the legislation or appellate authorities - It was insensitive to context and would almost always favour a grant of H&C relief at the first step - The officer performed a reasonable BIOC analysis which took various relevant factors into account, particularly given the deficient evidence provided by Celise - The officer was not required to take on the role of parens patriae respecting the child or solicit additional information on her circumstances - The fact that it might be more desirable for a child to live in Canada did not establish a presumption than an H&C application should be approved.

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer - [See Aliens - Topic 1206 ].

Cases Noticed:

Gonzalez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2015), 477 F.T.R. 203; 2015 FC 382, refd to. [para. 17].

Williams v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 79; 2012 FC 166, not folld. [para. 17].

Singh Sahota v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 445; 2011 FC 739, refd to. [para. 18].

Hawthorne v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 297 N.R. 187; 2002 FCA 475, refd to. [para. 18].

Beharry et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 383 F.T.R. 157; 2011 FC 110, refd to. [para. 18].

Sinniah v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 794; 2011 FC 1285, refd to. [para. 18].

Mangru et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 392 F.T.R. 333; 2011 FC 779, refd to. [para. 18].

Pearson v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 395 F.T.R. 90; 2011 FC 981, refd to. [para. 18].

Sebbe et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 414 F.T.R. 268; 2012 FC 813, not folld. [para. 19].

Joseph et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 440 F.T.R. 36; 2013 FC 993, refd to. [para. 19].

Pokhan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 732; 2012 FC 1453, refd to. [para. 20].

Judnarine v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 425 F.T.R. 312; 2013 FC 82, refd to. [para. 20].

Dina v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 427 F.T.R. 291; 2013 FC 216, refd to. [para. 20].

Begum et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 394; 2013 FC 824, refd to. [para. 20].

Thomas v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 766; 2012 FC 1517, refd to. [para. 20].

Webb v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 417 F.T.R. 306; 2012 FC 1060, dist. [para. 23].

Kobita v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 423 F.T.R. 218; 2012 FC 1479, refd to. [para. 23].

Diaz et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 131; 2015 FC 373, refd to. [para. 23].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 26].

Kisana v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 392 N.R. 163; 2009 FCA 189, refd to. [para. 28].

Beggs et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 419; 2013 FC 903, refd to. [para. 31].

Serda et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2006] F.T.R. Uned. 209; 2006 FC 356, refd to. [para. 33].

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. 34].

Owusu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 318 N.R. 300; 2004 FCA 38, refd to. [para. 35].

Martinez Hoyos et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 440 F.T.R. 84; 2013 FC 998, dist. [para. 45].

Counsel:

Richard Wazana, for the applicant;

Ladan Shahrooz, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Richard Wazana, WazanaLaw, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

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

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 13, 2015, before Mosley, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 19, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Celise c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • May 19, 2015
    ...CELISE v. CANADA [2015] 4 F.C.R. IMM-3821-142015 FC 642Lucianna Celise (Applicant)v.The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Respondent)Indexed as: CelIse v. Canada (CItIzenshI p and ImmIgratIon)Federal Court, Mosley J.—Toronto, May 13; Ottawa, May 19, 2015.Citizenship and Immigr......
  • Sousa Bettencourt v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 225
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • February 16, 2023
    ...v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 373 para 29 [Osorio Diaz]; Celise v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 642 at para 35 [Celise]; Louisy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 254 at para 11 [Louisy]; Huong v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 12......
  • Toor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 773
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • May 27, 2022
    ...best interests (Osorio Diaz v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 373 at para 29; Celise v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 642 at para 35; Louisy at para 11; Huong v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1210 at para 26; Semana at para 37). [18] At the outset......
  • Jones v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 655
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • May 4, 2022
    ...for example, Jaramillo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 744 at para 62; and Celise v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 642 at paras 35-36. [34] Finally, I agree with Ms. Jones that a decision maker must make a good faith effort to understand the submissions or evi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Celise c. Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration),
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • May 19, 2015
    ...CELISE v. CANADA [2015] 4 F.C.R. IMM-3821-142015 FC 642Lucianna Celise (Applicant)v.The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Respondent)Indexed as: CelIse v. Canada (CItIzenshI p and ImmIgratIon)Federal Court, Mosley J.—Toronto, May 13; Ottawa, May 19, 2015.Citizenship and Immigr......
  • Sousa Bettencourt v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 225
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • February 16, 2023
    ...v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 373 para 29 [Osorio Diaz]; Celise v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 642 at para 35 [Celise]; Louisy v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2017 FC 254 at para 11 [Louisy]; Huong v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 12......
  • Toor v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 773
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • May 27, 2022
    ...best interests (Osorio Diaz v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 373 at para 29; Celise v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 642 at para 35; Louisy at para 11; Huong v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 1210 at para 26; Semana at para 37). [18] At the outset......
  • Jones v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 655
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • May 4, 2022
    ...for example, Jaramillo v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 744 at para 62; and Celise v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 642 at paras 35-36. [34] Finally, I agree with Ms. Jones that a decision maker must make a good faith effort to understand the submissions or evi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT