Guylas et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 202

JudgeAnnis, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateDecember 03, 2014
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations2015 FC 202;(2015), 476 F.T.R. 51 (FC)

Guylas v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 476 F.T.R. 51 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.060

Lajos Guylas, Maria Gulyasne Lakatos and Lajos Gulyas (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-5739-13; 2015 FC 202)

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

Federal Court

Annis, J.

February 18, 2015.

Summary:

The applicants, a family from Hungary, applied for refugee protection based on their alleged fears of persecution in Hungary due to their Roma ethnicity. A member of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) denied the application. The applicants applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application and remitted the matter to another member of the RPD for reconsideration.

Administrative Law - Topic 526

The hearing and decision - Conduct of hearing - Adjournments - [See Aliens - Topic 4084 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2266

Natural justice - The duty of fairness - What constitutes procedural fairness - [See Aliens - Topic 4084 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 2484

Natural justice - Procedure - At hearing - Adjournments - [See Aliens - Topic 4084 ].

Aliens - Topic 1329.3

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Right to a fair hearing - [See Aliens - Topic 4084 ].

Aliens - Topic 1330

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Right to counsel or representation - [See Aliens - Topic 4084 ].

Aliens - Topic 4084

Practice - Hearings - Adjournments or postponements - The applicants, citizens of Hungary, applied for refugee protection - They retained a lawyer through Legal Aid who completed their Personal Information Forms, but thereafter were unable to find a lawyer whose fees they could afford - On May 6, 2013, they received a Notice to Appear before the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) on June 26, 2013 - The applicants met with a law school's teaching clinic - On June 21, 2013, the clinic wrote to the RPD and requested a one month postponement so that they could adequately prepare - No response was received - The applicants attended the hearing on June 26, unrepresented, and were advised that they had to proceed without a lawyer - The RPD denied the refugee protection claim - The Federal Court allowed the applicants' application for judicial review - The refusal to grant a postponement was a breach of procedural fairness - The failure to have counsel present at the hearing generally left clients at a serious disadvantage, particularly in a case such as this where the applicants were vulnerable - They were not conversant in English and there appeared to be issues with the quality of the interpretation - In addition, the RPD had been double-booked, which created a situation where it made sense to grant an adjournment - The RPD's impatience and concern for time gave rise to an appearance of unfairness - Finally, the manner in which the request was decided smacked of unreasonableness by its peremptory nature.

Cases Noticed:

Khela v. Mission Institution (Warden) et al., [2014] 1 S.C.R. 502; 455 N.R. 279; 351 B.C.A.C. 91; 599 W.A.C. 91; 2014 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 29].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 29].

Forest Ethics Advocacy Association et al. v. National Energy Board et al. (2014), 465 N.R. 152; 246 A.C.W.S.(3d) 191; 2014 FCA 245, refd to. [para. 29].

Re: Sound v. Fitness Industry Council of Canada et al. (2014), 455 N.R. 87; 2014 FCA 48, refd to. [para. 29].

Maritime Broadcasting System Ltd. v. Canadian Media Guild (2014), 455 N.R. 115; 373 D.L.R.(4th) 167; 2014 FCA 59, refd to. [para. 29].

Odia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 287; 2014 FC 663, refd to. [para. 41].

Evans v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 388 F.T.R. 122; 2011 FC 444, refd to. [para. 41].

Yoon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 377 F.T.R. 149; 2010 FC 1017, refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Prasanna Balasundaram, for the applicants, Lajos Guylas, Maria Gulyasne Lakatos and Lajod Gulyas;

Jocelyne Espejo Clarke, for the respondent, The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Solicitors of Record:

Downtown Legal Services, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants, Lajos Guylas, Maria Gulyasne Lakatos and Lajod Gulyas;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on December 3, 2014, before Annis, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 18, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial

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