Ching v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.037

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Judge: Kane, J.
• Citation: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.037,2015 FC 725
• Date: 14 May 2015

Ching v. Can. (M.C.I.), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.037

MLB being edited

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

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.037

Wai Kheong Ching (applicant) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-1272-14; 2015 FC 725)

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

Federal Court

Kane, J.

June 9, 2015.

Summary:

The applicant, a citizen of Malaysia, claimed refugee protection. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board denied the claim pursuant to ss. 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Refugee Appeal Division dismissed the applicant's appeal. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application with respect to the s. 97 claim.

Aliens - Topic 1326.6

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Division - Duties of - Ching, a citizen of Malaysia, claimed refugee protection - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) found that Ching was generally credible but denied the claim pursuant to ss. 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - Ching appealed the s. 97 ruling, arguing that the RPD erred in finding that he had not rebutted the presumption of state protection and in assessing his personalized risk - The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissed the appeal - Although Ching had not appealed the RPD's credibility findings, the RAD found that certain of the RPD's positive credibility findings were unreasonable - The Federal Court allowed Ching's application for judicial review - The RAD breached procedural fairness by not providing Ching with an opportunity to make submissions about its concerns with the RPD's credibility findings, which Ching had not challenged - This was so despite the fact that the fact that the credibility findings would not change the outcome of the current decision - See paragraphs 65 to 76.

Aliens - Topic 1329.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Right to a fair hearing - [See Aliens - Topic 1326.6 ].

Aliens - Topic 4093

Practice - Hearings - Right to make representations - [See Aliens - Topic 1326.6 ].

Cases Noticed:

Newton v. Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association (Alta.) et al., [2011] 4 W.W.R. 232; 493 A.R. 89; 502 W.A.C. 89; 2010 ABCA 399, refd to. [para. 13].

Raza v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2007), 370 N.R. 344; 2007 FCA 385, consd. [para. 14].

Huruglica et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014) 461 F.T.R. 241; 2014 FC 799, refd to. [para. 43].

Iyamuremye et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 455 F.T.R. 201; 2014 FC 494, refd to. [para. 43].

Eng v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 297; 245 A.C.W.S.(3d) 644; 2014 FC 711, refd to. [para. 43].

Alvarez et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 296; 2014 FC 702, refd to. [para. 43].

Yetna v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 463 F.T.R. 128; 2014 FC 858, refd to. [para. 43].

Triastcin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 465 F.T.R. 231; 2014 FC 975, refd to. [para. 43].

Tamayo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 469 F.T.R. 32; 2014 FC 1127, refd to. [para. 43].

Bahta et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.045; 248 A.C.W.S.(3d) 419; 2014 FC 1245, refd to. [para. 43].

Akuffo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 467 F.T.R. 94; 2014 FC 1063, refd to. [para. 44].

Djossou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 467 F.T.R. 289; 2014 FC 1080, refd to [para. 44].

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. 45].

Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 466 F.T.R. 187; 246 A.C.W.S.(3d) 433; 2014 FC 1022, refd to. [para. 46].

Khachatourian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 55; 2015 FC 182, refd to. [para. 46].

Alyafi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 465 F.T.R. 114; 2014 FC 952, refd to. [para. 48].

Guardado et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 402; 2014 FC 953, refd to. [para. 48].

Diarra v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 430; 2014 FC 1009, refd to. [para. 48].

Aloulou et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 470 F.T.R. 303; 2014 FC 1236, refd to. [para. 48].

Bui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 530; 2014 FC 1145, refd to. [para. 48].

Genu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.048; 2015 FC 129, refd to. [para. 48].

Nahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 476; 2014 FC 1208, refd to. [para. 49].

Balde v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.035; 2015 FC 624, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Mian (M.H.), [2014] 2 S.C.R. 689; 462 N.R. 1; 580 A.R. 1; 620 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 54, appld. [para. 66].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 75].

Committee for Justice and Liberty Foundation et al. v. National Energy Board et al., [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, refd to. [para. 77].

Counsel:

Dov Maierovitz, for the applicant;

Leanne Briscoe, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Dov Maierovitz, 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 14, 2015, before Kane, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 9, 2015.