Hakizimana et al. v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), (2003) 232 F.T.R. 28 (TD)

• Judge: Pinard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 16, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 232 F.T.R. 28 (TD)

Hakizimana v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2003), 232 F.T.R. 28 (TD)

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: [2003] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.009

Jeannine Hakizimana et Cédric Bicamumpaka et Astrid Bicamumpaka Shema (demandeurs) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration (M.C.I.) (défendeur)

(IMM-1327-02; 2003 FCT 223; 2003 CFPI 223)

Indexed As: Hakizimana et al. v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Pinard, J.

February 26, 2003.

Summary:

The applicants sought judicial review of the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board's decision denying them refugee status.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the application respecting one applicant and dismissed the application respecting the other applicants.

Aliens - Topic 1329.3

Admission - Refugees - Right to a fair hearing - A mother and, inter alios, her son sought refugee status - The son was under 18 years of age - The Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board denied the application - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed a judicial review application respecting the son because the Board failed to designate another person to represent the son as required by s. 69(4) of the Immigration Act and s. 15 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules - The Board also erred by not giving the son an opportunity of being heard separately - This denial of procedural fairness vitiated the Board's decision respecting the son - See paragraphs 19 and 23.

Aliens - Topic 1330

Admission - Refugees - Right to counsel or representation - [See Aliens - Topic 1329.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

Shamlou v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 103 F.T.R. 241; 32 Imm. L.R.(2d) 135 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Choovak (2002), 220 F.T.R. 127 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Aguebor v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hilo v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1991), 130 N.R. 236 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Maricic v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2002), 219 F.T.R. 229 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 19].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 19].

Liyanagamage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 176 N.R. 4 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

Counsel:

Francine Veilleux, for the applicants;

Guy Lamb, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Francine Veilleux, Lévis, Quebec, for the applicants;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 16, 2003, at Québec, Quebec, before Pinard, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on February 26, 2003.