Hanko et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2014) 455 F.T.R. 130 (FC)

• Judge: Campbell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 07, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 455 F.T.R. 130 (FC);2014 FC 474

Hanko v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2014), 455 F.T.R. 130 (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: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.045

Laszlo Hanko, Liliana Frida Hanko and Frida Krajczar (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-1789-13; 2014 FC 474; 2014 CF 474)

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

Federal Court

Campbell, J.

May 15, 2014.

Summary:

A Roma family who were citizens of Hungary claimed refugee protection. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected their claim, finding that they had not rebutted the presumption of state protection. The family applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court allowed the application and referred the matter back for redetermination by a differently constituted panel of the RPD.

Aliens - Topic 1323.2

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Persecution - Protection of country of nationality or citizenship (internal flight alternative) - A Roma family, citizens of Hungary, fled to Canada after suffering a lifetime of discrimination and persecutory treatment in terms of accessing education, employment, medical care and other social services - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) rejected the family's refugee claim, finding that there was adequate state protection in Hungary for Roma who were victims of crime, police abuse, discrimination or persecution, and that "Hungary is making serious efforts to address these problems and to implement these measures at the operational or local level, and that the police and government officials are both willing and able to protect victims." - The Federal Court allowed the family's application for judicial review - Hungary's fledgling efforts to deal with the monumental societal problem of active racism against Roma could not be interpreted to be actual adequate state protection at the operational level - Given the evidence of the well-understood systemic nature of discrimination and persecution of Roma, making a report to an authority higher than the police (such as a government body that did not offer actual protection but simply received complaints and report statistics), would not have realistically and reasonably resulted in the family being provided with any greater protection.

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689; 153 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 4].

Garcia v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2007), 308 F.T.R. 54; 2007 FC 79, refd to. [para. 9].

Kumati v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2012] F.T.R. Uned. 768; 2012 FC 1519, agreed with [para. 11].

Counsel:

Meera Budovitch, for the applicants;

Balqees Mihiriq, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Patricia Wells Immigration Lawyers, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants;

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

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 7, 2014, before Campbell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following order and reasons on May 15, 2014.