Djossou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2014 FC 1080

• Judge: Martineau, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 22, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2014 FC 1080;(2014), 467 F.T.R. 289 (FC)

Djossou v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2014), 467 F.T.R. 289 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

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

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.016

Monia Patricia Djossou (demanderesse) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration (défendeur)

(IMM-7980-13; 2014 CF 1080; 2014 FC 1080)

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

Federal Court

Martineau, J.

November 14, 2014.

Summary:

The applicant was a citizen of Benin who claimed refugee protection following the persecution she purported to have suffered in Togo after the death of her Togolese husband. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board found that the applicant was neither a "Convention refugee" nor a "person in need of protection" within the meaning of ss. 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upheld the decision. The applicant applied for judicial review. At issue was whether the RAD committed a reviewable error in applying, to the RPD's findings of fact or of mixed fact and law, the standard of "reasonableness" used by courts sitting in judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application, set aside the impugned decision and referred the matter to the RAD for reconsideration of the appeal.

Aliens - Topic 1334

Admission - Refugee Protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Appeals or judicial review - Scope of review - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected a refugee claim (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), ss. 96 and 97)) - The refugee claimant appealed, raising questions of fact or of mixed law and fact - The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) upheld the decision, using the reasonableness standard of review (Dunsmuir) - The applicant applied for judicial review - The Federal Court allowed the application - The RAD committed a reviewable error in applying the reasonableness standard to the RPD's findings of fact or of mixed fact and law - That is, the RAD erred in treating the appeal as a judicial review and in adopting a judicial review-based approach - Rather, the RAD should have asked whether the appeal process provided at ss. 110 and 111 of the IRPA was a true appeal, an appeal de novo, or a hybrid appeal - In any event, there was no reference in those provisions to deference - The court declined to impose any standard of deference on the RAD - Rather, the onus was on the RAD to review the IRPA and to adopt a new test after considering a number of possible approaches.

Cases Noticed:

Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 466 F.T.R. 187; 2014 FC 1022, refd to. [para. 5].

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. 5].

Iyamuremye et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 455 F.T.R. 201; 2014 FC 494, refd to. [para. 6].

Triastcin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 465 F.T.R. 231; 2014 FC 975, refd to. [para. 6].

Akuffo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 467 F.T.R. 94; 2014 FC 1063, refd to. [para. 6].

Alvarez et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 296; 2014 FC 702, refd to. [para. 6].

Eng. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 297; 2014 FC 711, refd to. [para. 6].

Njeukam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 355; 2014 FC 859, refd to. [para. 6].

Yetna v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 463 F.T.R. 128; 2014 FC 858, refd to. [para. 6].

Spasoja v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 464 F.T.R. 160; 2014 FC 913, refd to. [para. 6].

Huruglica et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 461 F.T.R. 241; 2014 FC 799, refd to. [para. 6].

Diarra v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 430; 2014 FC 1009, refd to. [para. 6].

Guardado et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 402; 2014 FC 953, refd to. [para. 6].

Alyafi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 465 F.T.R. 114; 2014 FC 952, refd to. [para. 6].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 11].

H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2005] 1 S.C.R. 401; 333 N.R. 1; 262 Sask.R. 1; 347 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 11].

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; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 14].

King v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 409 F.T.R. 216; 2012 FC 488, affd. (2013), 446 N.R. 149; 2013 FCA 131 refd to. [para. 14].

Alliance Pipeline Ltd. v. Smith, [2011] 1 S.C.R. 160; 412 N.R. 66; 2011 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 16].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 16].

National Gallery of Canada v. Canadian Artists' Representation et al. (2014), 458 N.R. 233; 2014 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 16].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2014), 458 N.R. 150; 2014 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 16].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2013), 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 18].

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 963 v. New Brunswick Liquor Corp., [1979] 2 S.C.R. 227; 26 N.R. 341; 25 N.B.R.(2d) 237; 51 A.P.R. 237, refd to. [para. 19].

Newton v. Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association (Alta.) et al. (2010), 493 A.R. 89; 502 W.A.C. 89; 38 Alta. L.R.(5th) 63; 2010 ABCA 399, refd to. [para. 20].

Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals v. Nor-Man Regional Health Authority Inc., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 616; 423 N.R. 95; 275 Man.R.(2d) 16; 538 W.A.C. 16; 2011 SCC 59, refd to. [para. 25].

Irving Pulp & Paper Ltd. v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 30, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 458; 445 N.R. 1; 404 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 1048 A.P.R. 1; 2013 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 25].

McLean v. British Columbia Securities Commission (2013), 452 N.R. 340; 347 B.C.A.C. 1; 593 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 26].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471; 422 N.R. 248; 2011 SCC 53, refd to. [para. 28].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 33].

B010 v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 443 N.R. 1; 2013 FCA 87, refd to. [para. 36].

Dupras v. Mason et al. (1994), 52 B.C.A.C. 59; 86 W.A.C. 59; 99 B.C.L.R.(2d) 266; 120 D.L.R.(4th) 127 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Mohamed v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1986] 3 F.C.R. 90; 68 N.R. 220; 130 D.L.R.(3d) 481 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Kahlon v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1989), 97 N.R. 349 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Kwan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001), 211 F.T.R. 33; 2001 FCT 971, refd to. [para. 48].

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (2003), 315 N.R. 175; 2003 FCA 488, refd to. [para. 50].

Molson Breweries, A Partnership v. Labatt (John) Ltd. et al., [2000] 3 F.C.R. 145; 252 N.R. 91 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45; 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 62].

Multiform Manufacturing Co. et autres v. R. et autres, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 624; 113 N.R. 373; 32 Q.A.C. 241; 58 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 79 C.R.(3d) 390, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Clarke (C.) (2014), 456 N.R. 43; 316 O.A.C. 384; 2014 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 63].

Chicken Marketing Board (B.C.) v. British Columbia Marketing Board (2002), 174 B.C.A.C. 15; 286 W.A.C. 15; 216 D.L.R.(4th) 587; 2002 BCCA 473, refd to. [para. 72].

Paul v. Forest Appeals Commission (B.C.) et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585; 310 N.R. 122; 187 B.C.A.C. 1; 307 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 55, refd to. [para. 72].

Whitehorse (City) and Smoler v. Yukon (Government) and Municipal Board (Yukon) (1988), 3 Y.R. 198; 52 D.L.R.(4th) 749; 39 M.P.L.R. 140 (Y.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 72].

Singh et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 74].

Rahaman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 3 F.C. 537; 288 N.R. 129; 2002 FCA 89, refd to. [para. 84].

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, refd to. [para. 88].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 110, sect. 111 [para. 8]; 162(1) [para. 32].

Counsel:

Stéphanie Valois, for the applicant;

Suzanne Trudel, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Stéphanie Valois, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Montreal, Quebec, on October 22, 2014, before Martineau, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on November 14, 2014.