De Guzman v. Can. (M.C.I.), 2005 FCA 436

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Judge: Desjardins, Evans and Malone, JJ.A.
• Date: 24 October 2005
• Citation: 2005 FCA 436,(2005), 345 N.R. 73 (FCA),262 DLR (4th) 13,345 NR 73,42 Admin LR (4th) 234,[2005] FCJ No 2119 (QL),137 CRR (2d) 20
• Court: Court of Appeal (Canada)

De Guzman v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2005), 345 N.R. 73 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. JA.007

Josephine Soliven de Guzman (appellant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(A-558-04; 2005 FCA 436)

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

Federal Court of Appeal

Desjardins, Evans and Malone, JJ.A.

December 20, 2005.

Summary:

De Guzman, a Canadian citizen, failed to disclose the existence of certain members of her family when she originally immigrated to Canada. She subsequently sought permanent residence visas for her sons. A visa officer refused her request under s. 117(9)(d) of the Immigra­tion and Refugee Protection Regula­tions which excluded from the family class eli­gible for sponsorship family members not disclosed when the sponsor immigrated. De Guz­man appealed. The Immigration Appeal Di­vision, of the Immi­gration and Refugee Board (IAD), dismissed the appeal. De Guz­man applied for judicial review, arguing that s. 117(9)(d) of the Regulations was inopera­tive since it is contrary to s. 7 of the Charter and ultra vires the family reunification objec­tive of the Immigration and Refugee Protec­tion Act (IRPA) and the requirement that the IRPA be construed in accordance with Can­ada's international human rights obligations.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported 257 F.T.R. 290, dismissed the applica­tion. The court held that s. 117(9)(d) of the Regu­lations was not ultra vires the IRPA; that s. 117(9)(d) was plain and clear statu­tory lan­guage, and that it was not open to being con­strued under s. 3(3)(f) of IRPA in the con­text of Canada's international obliga­tions under human rights conventions; and s. 117(9)(d) was constitu­tional and consistent with s. 7 of the Charter. The court certified a question for consider­ation by the Court of Appeal with respect to ss. 117(9)(d) of the Regulations and s. 7 of the Charter. De Guz­man appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Aliens - Topic 2

Definitions and general principles - Legis­lation - Interpretation - Section 3(3)(f) of the Immigration and Refu­gee Protection Act (IRPA) provided that the IRPA was to be construed and applied in a manner that complied with international human rights instruments to which Canada was a signa­tory - The Federal Court of Appeal dis­cussed the in­terpretation and scope of s. 3(3)(f), stat­ing, inter alia, that s. 3(3)(f) did not incor­porate into Canadian law "interna­tional human rights instruments to which Canada is sig­na­tory", but merely directed that the IRPA be con­strued and applied in a man­ner that complied with them - The court also dis­cussed the relationship be­tween subordinate legislation and s. 3(3)(f) - See para­graphs 71 to 110.

Aliens - Topic 3.2

Definitions and general principles - Inter­national Conventions and obligations (incl. incorporation of) - [See Aliens - Topic 2 and Civil Rights - Topic 1326 ].

Aliens - Topic 1285

Admission - Immigrants - Sponsorship - Per­sons entitled to be sponsors - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1326 ].

Aliens - Topic 1287

Admission - Immigrants - Sponsorship - Members of the family class - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1326 ]

Civil Rights - Topic 1326

Security of the person - Immigration - Spon­sorship - De Guzman, a Cana­dian citi­zen, sought permanent residence visas for her sons - The visas were denied under s. 117(9)(d) of the Immigration and Refu­gee Protec­tion Act (IRPA) Regula­tions which excluded from the family class eligible for sponsor­ship family members not disclosed when the sponsor immigrated - De Guz­man appealed - The Immigration Appeal Divi­sion, of the Immi­gration and Refu­gee Board (IAD), dis­missed the appeal - De Guzman applied for judicial review, argu­ing that s. 117(9)(d) of the Regula­tions was contrary to s. 7 of the Charter, ultra vires the regulation making powers of the IRPA, s. 14, and the require­ment that the IRPA be construed in ac­cordance with Can­ada's international human rights obli­gations (s. 3(3)(f)) - An applications judge dismissed the application - De Guz­man ap­pealed - The Federal Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal, holding that s. 117(9)(d) was neither ultra vires, nor contrary to s. 7 of the Char­ter, and that s. 117(9)(d) did not make the IRPA non-compliant with "an in­ternational human rights instrument to which Canada is signa­tory" - See para­graphs 1 to 110.

Cases Noticed:

Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters et al. v. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources) et al. (2002), 158 O.A.C. 255; 211 D.L.R.(4th) 741 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Canadian Association of Regulated Im­port­ers et al. v. Canada (Attorney Gener­al) et al., [1994] 2 F.C. 247; 164 N.R. 342 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161; 90 D.L.R.(4th) 289; 16 Imm. L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 45].

Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citi­zenship and Immigration) (2005), 339 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Drybones, [1970] S.C.R. 282, refd to. [para. 55].

Capital Cities Communications Inc. et al. v. Canadian Radio-Television Commis­sion et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141; 18 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 63].

National Corn Growers' Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449; 45 Admin. L.R. 161, refd to. [para. 64].

Reference Re Compulsory Arbitration, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313; 74 N.R. 99; 78 A.R. 1; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 161, refd to. [para. 66].

Ref­erence Re Public Service Employee Re­la­tions Act (Alta.) - see Ref­erence Re Compulsory Arbitration.

Davidson v. Slaight Communications Inc., [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038; 93 N.R. 183; 59 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 26 C.C.E.L. 85; 89 C.L.L.C. 14,031; 40 C.R.R. 100, refd to. [para. 66].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 67].

114957 Canada ltée (Spraytech, Société d'arrosage) et al. v. Hudson (Town), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 241; 271 N.R. 201; 200 D.L.R.(4th) 219; 2001 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 68].

Martinez v. Canada (Minister of Citizen­ship and Immigration), [2003] F.T.R. Uned. 799; 2003 FC 1341, refd to. [para. 71].

Munar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2005), 279 F.T.R. 90; 2005 FC 1180, refd to. [para. 72].

Al-Nashif v. Bulgaria (2003), 36 E.H.R.R. 37 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts.), refd to. [para. 97].

Sen v. Netherlands (2003), 36 E.H.R.R. 7 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts.), refd to. [para. 99].

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney Gen­eral), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 104].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, sect. 2 [para. 55].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 3].

European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Free­doms (1950), 213 U.N.T.S. 221, art. 17 [para. 95].

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 3(1)(d), sect. 3(3)(f), sect. 5(1), sect. 12(1), sect. 13(1), sect. 14; sect. 25(1), sect. 40, sect. 63(1), sect. 65 [para. 17].

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Reg­u­­lations (Can.), Immigration and Re­fu­gee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, sect. 117(9)(d) [para. 17].

Immigration and Refugee Protection Regu­lations - see Immigration and Refu­gee Protection Act Regulations (Can.).

United Nations, American Con­vention on Human Rights (1969), 1144 U.N.T.S. 123, art. 17(1) [para. 101].

United Nations, Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), 1577 U.N.T.S. 3; Can. T.S. 1992, No. 3, art. 16 [para. 94].

United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Pol­iti­cal Rights (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171, art. 17 [para. 94].

United Nations, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3, art. 10 [para. 101].

United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, art. 18 [para. 76].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brownlie, Ian, Principles of International Law (6th Ed. 2003), p. 582, 583 [para. 76].

Brunnée, Jutta, and Toope, Steven J., A Hesitant Embrace: Baker and the Appli­cation of International Law in Canadian Courts, in Dyzenhaus, David, The Unity of Public Law (2004), pp. 357 [para. 69]; 367, 383, 384 [para. 70].

Dyzenhaus, David, The Unity of Public Law (2004), pp. 357 [para. 69]; 367, 383, 384 [para. 70].

Graham, Randal N., Statutory Interpreta­tion: Theory and Practice (2001), c. 4 [para. 82].

Kindred, Hugh M., International Law - Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied in Canada (6th Ed. 2000), pp. 102, 103 [para. 76].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), c. 16 [para. 62].

Taggart, Michael, From Parliamentary Pow­ers to Privatization: the Chequered History of Delegated Legislation in the Twentieth Century (2005), 55 U.T.L.J. 575, pp. 621, 622, 623 [para. 25].

Counsel:

Lorne Waldman, William Macintosh and Paul Larlee, for the appellant;

Keith Reimer and Sandra Weafer, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Waldman and Associates, Toronto, On­tario, for the appellant;

William Macintosh and Associates, Surrey, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Larlee and Associates, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­er­al for Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on October 24, 2005, at Vancouver, British Columbia, be­fore Desjardins, Evans and Malone, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on December 20, 2005, including the following opinions:

Evans, J.A. (Desjardins, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 110;

Malone, J.A., concurring reasons - see para­graphs 111 to 112.