Gatue v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2012) 413 F.T.R. 73 (FC)

• Judge: Boivin, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 29, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2012), 413 F.T.R. 73 (FC);2012 FC 730

Gatue v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2012), 413 F.T.R. 73 (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: [2012] F.T.R. TBEd. JN.046

Florendo Cesar Tan Gatue, Vilma Tan Gatue and Czarina Joy Tan Gatue (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-6326-11; 2012 FC 730; 2012 CF 730)

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

Federal Court

Boivin, J.

June 12, 2012.

Summary:

The Gatues (father, mother and daughter) were citizens of the Philippines. Several months after their applications for permanent residence were signed, the daughter gave birth to her first child. She gave birth to her second child two weeks before she was issued her visa. The Gatues subsequently arrived in Canada in possession of their permanent resident visas. A request for an admissibility hearing was made. The Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board concluded that the Gatues were inadmissible for misrepresentation due to the fact that they had failed to disclose the daughter's two minor children (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 40(1)(a)). The Gatues applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Gatues were not forthright in their dealings with immigration authorities and thereby did not fulfill their "duty of candour". The Board's decision was reasonable.

Aliens - Topic 1217

Admission - Immigrants - General - Bars - Misrepresentation of material facts - The applicants (father, mother and daughter) were citizens of the Philippines - Several months after their applications for permanent residence were signed, the daughter gave birth to her first child - She gave birth to her second child two weeks before she was issued her visa - The applicants subsequently arrived in Canada in possession of their permanent resident visas - A request for an admissibility hearing was made - The Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board concluded that the applicants were inadmissible due to the fact that they had misrepresented material facts relating to a relevant matter by failing to disclose the daughter's two minor children (Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 40(1)(a)) - On judicial review, the applicants took issue with the Board's credibility findings and its treatment of the evidence - They also argued that there was no evidence that they had deliberately misrepresented, and that the Board failed to conduct a mens rea analysis - The Federal Court rejected the applicants' arguments - The Board's findings were reasonable in light of the facts and the applicable jurisprudence - It was reasonable for the Board to conclude that the misrepresentations could not be viewed as innocent or inadvertent - The applicants were not forthright in their dealings with immigration authorities and thereby did not fulfill their "duty of candour" - See paragraphs 19 to 33.

Aliens - Topic 1221.1

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Duty of applicant (incl. truthfulness) - [See Aliens - Topic 1217 ].

Cases Noticed:

Berlin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 397 F.T.R. 205; 2011 FC 1117, refd to. [para. 18].

Ghasemzadeh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 372 F.T.R. 247; 2010 FC 716, refd to. [para. 18].

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. 18].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 18].

Haque et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 189; 2011 FC 315, refd to. [para. 25].

Cabrera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 372 F.T.R. 211; 2010 FC 709, refd to. [para. 25].

Uppal et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 325; 2009 FC 445, refd to. [para. 25].

Khan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 381; 2008 FC 512, refd to. [para. 25].

Mai v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2011), 383 F.T.R. 139; 2011 FC 101, refd to. [para. 26].

Maruquin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 922; 2007 FC 1349, refd to. [para. 28].

Osisanwo et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 398 F.T.R. 55; 2011 FC 1126, refd to. [para. 30].

Medel v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1990] 2 F.C. 345; 113 N.R. 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Baro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 877; 2007 FC 1299, refd to. [para. 32].

Liyanagamage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 176 N.R. 4 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Bodine v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2008), 331 F.T.R. 200; 2008 FC 848, refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 40(1)(a) [para. 17].

Counsel:

Jeremiah Eastman, for the applicants;

John Loncar, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Law Firm of Jeremiah Eastman, Brampton, Ontario, for the applicants;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 29, 2012, before Boivin, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment and judgment, dated June 12, 2012.