Green et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2015) 479 F.T.R. 231 (FC)

• Judge: Kane, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 31, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 479 F.T.R. 231 (FC);2015 FC 536

Green v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 479 F.T.R. 231 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.070

Sherika Coleena Green and Casey Lanae Bryan (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-578-14; 2015 FC 536)

Indexed As: Green et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court

Kane, J.

April 27, 2015.

Summary:

The applicants (a mother and her minor child), citizens of Jamaica, claimed refugee protection based on a fear of the mother's ex-boyfriend and the child's father. The Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board denied the claim. The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissed the applicants' appeal. The applicants applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application and remitted the matter to the RAD for reconsideration.

Aliens - Topic 1326.1

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Division - Determination by - Green and her minor child, citizens of Jamaica, claimed refugee protection based on a fear of domestic abuse by Green's ex-boyfriend and the child's father - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denied the claim, finding that Green was not completely credible and that state protection would be available to her in Jamaica - The Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) dismissed Green's appeal - Although it found that the RPD's credibility findings were unreasonable, the RAD concluded that the RPD's state protection findings were reasonable - The Federal Court allowed Green's application for judicial review - The RPD's state protection findings were based on its credibility findings - Having found that the credibility findings were unreasonable, there was no basis for the RAD to uphold the RPD's state protection findings - The RAD also erred by performing a judicial review type function rather than an appellate function - It should have conducted an independent assessment of the evidence respecting the adequacy of state protection and Green's efforts to seek state protection.

Aliens - Topic 1334

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Appeals or judicial review - Scope of review - [See Aliens - Topic 1326.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Newton v. Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association (Alta.) et al. (2010), 493 A.R. 89; 502 W.A.C. 89; 2010 ABCA 399, refd to. [para. 6].

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. 10].

Huruglica et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 461 F.T.R. 241; 2014 FC 799, refd to. [para. 12].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2011), 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 17].

Budhai et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 292 N.R. 379; 2002 FCA 298, refd to. [para. 19].

Canada (Attorney General) v. White (2011), 423 N.R. 251; 2011 FCA 190, refd to. [para. 19].

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. 19].

National Gallery of Canada v. Canadian Artists' Representation et al. (2014), 458 N.R. 233; 2014 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 19].

Khachatourian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. Uned. 55; 2015 FC 182, refd to. [para. 20].

Minister of Employment and Immigration v. Villafranca (1992), 150 N.R. 232 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689; 153 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 21].

Zhuravlvev et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 187 F.T.R. 110 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 21].

Lozado v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 397, refd to. [para. 21].

Iyamuremye et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 455 F.T.R. 201; 2014 FC 494, refd to. [para. 22].

Alvarez et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 296; 2014 FC 702, refd to. [para. 22].

Yetna v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 463 F.T.R. 128; 2014 FC 858, refd to. [para. 22].

Triastcin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 465 F.T.R. 231; 2014 FC 975, refd to. [para. 22].

Tamayo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 469 F.T.R. 32; 2014 FC 1127, refd to. [para. 22].

Bahta et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 471 F.T.R. 122; 2014 FC 1245, refd to. [para. 22].

Akuffo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 467 F.T.R. 94; 2014 FC 1063, refd to. [para. 23].

Djossou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 467 F.T.R. 289; 2014 FC 1080, refd to. [para. 23].

Alyafi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 465 F.T.R. 114; 2014 FC 952, refd to. [para. 26].

Guardado et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 402; 2014 FC 953, refd to. [para. 26].

Diarra v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 430; 2014 FC 1009, refd to. [para. 26].

Aloulou et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2015), 470 F.T.R. 303; 2014 FC 1236, refd to. [para. 26].

Bui v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 530; 2014 FC 1145, refd to. [para. 26].

Genu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2015), 475 F.T.R. 38; 2015 FC 129, refd to. [para. 26].

Njeukam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 355; 2014 FC 859, refd to. [para. 27].

Allalou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 468 F.T.R. 35; 2014 FC 1084, refd to. [para. 27].

Sajad v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 507; 2014 FC 1107, refd to. [para. 27].

Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - see Nahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration).

Nahal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 476; 2014 FC 1208, refd to. [para. 27].

Yin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 486; 2014 FC 1209, refd to. [para. 27].

Counsel:

Jason Currie, for the applicants;

Sharon Stewart Guthrie, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Barrister and Solicitor, Windsor, Ontario, for the applicants;

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

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 31, 2015, before Kane, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons on April 27, 2015.