Nguesso v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 879

• Judge: Bédard, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 17, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 FC 879;[2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.051

Nguesso v. Can. (M.C.I.), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.051

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for F.T.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

[English language version follows French language version]

[La version anglaise vient à la suite de la version française]

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.051

Wilfrid Nguesso (demandeur) v. Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration (défendeur)

(IMM-1144-14; 2015 CF 879; 2015 FC 879)

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

Federal Court

Bédard, J.

July 17, 2015.

Summary:

An immigration officer declared Nguesso, the nephew and adopted son of the president of Congo, inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality under s. 37(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). The officer indicated that she had reasonable grounds to believe that Nguesso was a member of a criminal organization "through his family connections", without specifying who made up the criminal organization. She concluded that she had reasonable grounds to believe that Nguesso had contributed to a system of embezzlement, money laundering and misappropriation of company property. The officer refused his application for permanent residence as a member of the family class. The processing of the application had taken seven years. Nguesso applied for judicial review, alleging several breaches of procedural fairness in the processing of his file, reasonable apprehension of bias, and errors of law.

The Federal Court allowed the application. The officer erred in law by failing to identify the criminal organization at issue and the precise offences under Canadian law along with their essential elements. The errors of law were determinative and affected the intelligibility of the decision, so that it could not be considered reasonable. The application was returned to the officer for a new analysis of the file. The following questions were certified:

"(a) In the context of a declaration of inadmissibility under paragraph 37(1)(a) of the IRPA, is it necessary to identify the applicable criminal organization?

"(b) At paragraph 37(1)(a) of the IRPA, does the expression "or in furtherance of the commission of an offence outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would constitute such an offence" require the identification of the provisions of a federal law that are related to an offence punishable by indictment, the identification of the constituent elements of the offence under Canadian law and the proof of the constituent elements of the offence?"

Administrative Law - Topic 2088

Natural justice - Constitution of board or tribunal (considerations incl. bias) - Bias - Apprehension of - [See Aliens - Topic 4088 ].

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer (incl. duty of fairness) - An immigration officer refused the applicant's permanent residence application and declared him inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality - On judicial review, the applicant submitted that broad procedural protections were required because of the enormous impact on his family of the decision to declare him inadmissible - His wife and six children were all Canadian citizens - The Federal Court, in determining the scope of the duty of fairness, stated that "a decision on inadmissibility does not involve the exercise of a discretionary power. This factor militates in favour of a greater scope for the duty of fairness. ... One must also consider the particular circumstances of the case and the significant impact that the decision declaring the applicant inadmissible and refusing his permanent residence application has had on his family. This decision prevents the family's permanent reunification in Canada, despite the fact that the applicant's wife and children are Canadian citizens. This particular circumstance militates in favour of a duty of fairness more extensive than that owed, for example, to a visa applicant who is not in this situation" - See paragraphs 62 to 67.

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer (incl. duty of fairness) - An immigration officer declared the applicant inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality - On judicial review, the applicant claimed that his right to procedural fairness was violated - He alleged that the grounds of inadmissibility relied on by the officer were not disclosed to him before she rendered her decision, including a report prepared by the Financial Transactions and Analysis Centre (FINTRAC) - The report included a list of the transfers of funds involving the applicant that were considered suspect in the context of a potential money laundering offence - The Federal Court held that the rules of procedural fairness were not breached - The applicant was informed of the nature of the inadmissibility being considered and the officer's concerns - He had a reasonable and meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process - The gist of the information contained in the FINTRAC report was disclosed to the applicant and he had the opportunity to make submissions - See paragraphs 69 to 130.

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer (incl. duty of fairness) - An immigration officer declared the applicant inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality - On judicial review, the applicant claimed that his right to procedural fairness was violated because the officer failed to disclose a report prepared by the Canadian Border Security Agency (CBSA) - The Federal Court held that the officer did not breach procedural fairness - The CBSA report was not relied on by the officer, and it was not based on information that was unavailable to the applicant - The CBSA report "was not an 'instrument of advocacy' designed to have such a degree of influence on the officer that advance disclosure was required to level the playing field. It was not a report reflecting negatively on the applicant on which the officer relied to render her decision ... . [The applicant's] argument is not sufficient to create a duty to disclose the report to the applicant, particularly because the CBSA was not acting as the decision-maker and the officer's decision was based on much more information than the CBSA had available to it when it issued its opinion." - See paragraphs 122 to 127.

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer (incl. duty of fairness) - An immigration officer refused the applicant's permanent residence application and declared him inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality - The processing of the application had taken seven years - On judicial review, the applicant claimed that his right to procedural fairness was violated - The Federal Court found no unfairness in the processing of the application - "The file was complex, and the Immigration Section waited for the results of the [Canada Border Services Agency]'s analyses. The record also indicates that the Immigration Section hoped to know the outcome of the French authorities' 'ill-gotten gains' investigation before rendering its decision. ... The applicant availed himself of the legal recourse at his disposal, a mandamus application, and the resulting out-of-court settlement helped to move the file forward. The subsequent delays were mainly caused by the requests from the applicant's successive counsel for more time to provide the information sought" - Delays also resulted from the applicant's complaint to the Director of the Immigration Section, alleging breaches of procedural fairness - See paragraphs 160 to 162.

Aliens - Topic 1747.1

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Members of criminal organization - An immigration officer concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was a member of a criminal organization, and had participated in that organization's activities - On judicial review, the applicant submitted that the officer applied the wrong standard of proof - Relying on R. v. MacDonald (2014) (SCC), he alleged that the "reasonable grounds to believe" standard referred to the standard of "reasonable and probable grounds" and had to be objectively verifiable - The Federal Court found that the officer applied the correct standard of proof - The standard applicable to inadmissibility for organized criminality was the "reasonable grounds to believe" standard set out at s. 33 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) - The principles in Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005) (SCC) applied to the determination of the standard in this case - The Court's statements in MacDonald did have the effect of changing the definition it had given to the standard of proof of "reasonable grounds to believe" in the IRPA context - See paragraphs 175 to 184.

Aliens - Topic 1747.1

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Members of criminal organization - An immigration officer declared the applicant inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality under s. 37(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), without specifying who made up the criminal organization - The Federal Court, in allowing the judicial review application, stated that "a liberal interpretation of 'criminal organization' is needed to help achieve the objectives of the provisions enabling the declaration of certain persons as inadmissible. However, I am of the view that the organization in question must at least be identified in the decision declaring a person inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality. The existence of a criminal organization constitutes an essential element of inadmissibility under paragraph 37(1)(a) of the IRPA. ... [T]he difficulty of precisely identifying a nameless organization does not relieve the officer handling the file and declaring a person inadmissible from identifying the criminal organization at issue." - See paragraphs 190 to 192.

Aliens - Topic 1747.1

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Members of criminal organization - An immigration officer indicated that she had reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was a member of a criminal organization "through his family connections", without specifying who made up the criminal organization - She declared the applicant inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality under s. 37(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) - On judicial review, the applicant submitted that the officer erred in law by failing to identify the criminal organization - The Federal Court agreed - "[B]y not specifying the criminal organization in question and by not providing sufficient indications of its composition, the officer erred in law, which makes her decision unreasonable, because an essential element is missing in the application of s. 37(1)(a) of the IRPA. I am of the view that ratifying such an omission would give the concept of criminal organization an overly broad interpretation that would allow for people to be declared inadmissible without any certainty about the criminal organization to which they are accused of belonging or the activities in which they are accused of participating." - See paragraphs 193 to 197.

Aliens - Topic 1747.1

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Members of criminal organization - An immigration officer concluded that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant was a member of a criminal organization and had participated in that organization's activities - She declared the applicant inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality under s. 37(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - On judicial review, the applicant argued that the officer erred in law by failing to identify the alleged offences in foreign law and their equivalents in Canadian law - The Federal Court stated that "I do not feel that it was necessary in this case to identify and analyze the equivalent offences in foreign law. However, the officer made an error of law warranting the Court's intervention by failing to identify the relevant offences under Canadian law, identify the essential elements of these offences and explain how the evidence resulted in reasonable grounds to believe that the essential elements of these offences were committed." - See paragraph 203.

Aliens - Topic 1747.1

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Members of criminal organization - The Federal Court stated that "in a context where there is no finding of guilt in the foreign country and the inadmissibility is merely founded on acts committed abroad, I am of the view that it is unnecessary to identify the potential foreign-law offences and compare them with the Canadian law." - Section 37(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act did not require a determination of whether the acts at issue were prohibited by foreign law - "The important thing is to assess whether the acts committed would be punishable by indictment in accordance with a Canadian Act of Parliament. The foreign law is only relevant to the extent that it enables one to assess the probative value of a conviction by a foreign jurisdiction as evidence that the acts committed correspond to an offence under Canadian law. Otherwise, it suffices to assess directly whether the evidence establishes reasonable grounds to believe that the person committed acts that, if committed in Canada, would be punishable by indictment in accordance with federal legislation. This exercise requires that the offences under Canadian law and their essential elements be identified." - See paragraph 208.

Aliens - Topic 1747.1

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Members of criminal organization - The Federal Court stated that "it is critical for the officer to identify the offences under Canadian law at issue, as well as their essential elements, and to assess the evidence before her with respect to the essential elements of these offences. According to section 33 and paragraph 37(1)(a) of the IRPA [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act], the officer declaring inadmissibility must have reasonable grounds to believe that the organization engages in or has engaged in activities in furtherance of the commission of an offence that, if committed in Canada, would constitute an indictable offence under an Act of Parliament. Without such an indication of the offence at issue and its essential elements, the decision is unintelligible because it is silent on an essential criterion of inadmissibility under paragraph 37(1)(a) of the IRPA." - See paragraph 211.

Aliens - Topic 1747.1

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Members of criminal organization - The Federal Court stated that "an officer who declares one inadmissible on this ground [organized criminality] must indicate which offences under Canadian law have allegedly been committed by the organization or the applicant, as well as their essential elements, then explain how the evidence provides reasonable grounds to believe that the offences have been committed." - See paragraph 214.

Aliens - Topic 1747.1

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration - Exclusion - Particular persons - Members of criminal organization - An immigration officer concluded that she had reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant had contributed to a system of embezzlement, money laundering and misappropriation of company property - She declared the applicant inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality under s. 37(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act - The Federal Court allowed the judicial review application - The errors of law committed by the officer were determinative and affected the intelligibility of the decision, so that it could not be considered reasonable - The officer "did not identify the precise offences under Canadian law to which the acts alleged to have been committed by the applicant corresponded, and so she necessarily failed to identify their constituent elements or assess the evidence in light of those elements. ... Because the officer neither identified the alleged offences under Canadian law nor assessed the evidence in light of the essential elements of those offences, I find it impossible to address the reasonableness of the officer's assessment of the evidence." - See paragraphs 215 to 219.

Aliens - Topic 4088

Practice - Hearings - Constitution of board (incl. bias) - An immigration officer declared the applicant inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality, and she refused his application for permanent residence - On judicial review, the applicant claimed that the officer's handling of his file raised a reasonable apprehension of bias - The Federal Court found no bias - The officer's interview notes described some of the applicant's reactions and commented on some of his answers, but none of the comments implied a bias or demonstrated that the notes did not faithfully reflect what happened during the interview - Nothing in the notes indicated that the officer conducted the interview improperly, unfairly or unreasonably - The questions were relevant and objective - Further, no inference of bad faith or reasonable apprehension of bias could be drawn from the officer's notes on the applicant's complaint filed with the Director of the Immigration Section - The officer's communications with the investigating judge responsible for the "ill-gotten gains" investigation in France were inappropriate, but that alone was not sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias because their purpose was to find out whether the investigation was nearing its conclusion - Possible charges following the investigation would have been relevant to the decision that the officer was to make - See paragraphs 166 to 172.

Equity - Topic 1482

Equitable principles respecting relief - Clean hands doctrine - Application of - The Federal Court stated that "[a]n application for judicial review is a recourse that involves judicial discretion. If the applicant does not come to the Court with 'clean hands', the Court may dismiss the application without determining the merits, but it is not obliged to do so. In exercising its discretion, the Court must instead try to strike a balance between the attack on the integrity of the process brought about by the applicant's misconduct and the public interest in ensuring the lawful conduct of government" - See paragraph 55.

Equity - Topic 1482

Equitable principles respecting relief - Clean hands doctrine - Application of - An immigration officer declared the applicant inadmissible on grounds of organized criminality and refused his application for permanent residence as a member of the family class - He applied for judicial review - The respondent argued that the applicant was not addressing the Court with "clean hands", and that the Court should therefore dismiss the application without considering it on the merits - The Federal Court declined to do so - The application raised serious issues and had a significant impact on the applicant and his family - The interests of justice would be better served "if I decide on the merits of this application for judicial review filed against the decision refusing the applicant's permanent residence application and declaring him inadmissible. Furthermore, the contradictions and conduct of which the respondent criticizes the applicant were in part considered by the officer and are relevant to the issue of whether the rules of procedural fairness were violated and whether the officer's decision was reasonable. It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to deal with them in that context." - See paragraphs 50 to 56.

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Attorney General) v. Quadrini (2010), 399 N.R. 33; 2010 FCA 47, refd to. [para. 45].

Thanabalasingham v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2006), 345 N.R. 388; 2006 FCA 14, refd to. [para. 53].

Dong v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 673; 2011 FC 1108, refd to. [para. 53].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 58].

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. 58].

Majdalani et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2015), 472 F.T.R. 285; 2015 FC 294, refd to. [para. 58].

Krishnamoorthy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 400 F.T.R. 267; 2011 FC 1342, refd to. [para. 58].

Pusat v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 388 F.T.R. 49; 2011 FC 428, refd to. [para. 58].

Agraira v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al., [2013] 2 S.C.R. 559; 446 N.R. 65; 2013 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 60].

Canadian National Railway Co. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2014] 2 S.C.R. 135; 458 N.R. 150; 2014 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 60].

Torre v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.040; 2015 FC 591, refd to. [para. 61].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 61].

Thanaratnam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005), 333 N.R. 233; 2005 FCA 122, refd to. [para. 61].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 64].

Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 650; 323 N.R. 1; 2004 SCC 48, refd to. [para. 64].

Khan (S.H.) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001), 283 N.R. 173; 2001 FCA 345, refd to. [para. 65].

Mekonen et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 754; 66 Imm. L.R.(3d) 222; 2007 FC 1133, refd to. [para. 66].

A.B. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 427 F.T.R. 116; 2013 FC 134, refd to. [para. 67].

Pimentel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.T.R. Uned. 683; 2004 FC 1149, refd to. [para. 98].

Ghofrani v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2008), 329 F.T.R. 302; 2008 FC 767, refd to. [para. 98].

Haghighi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] 4 F.C. 407; 257 N.R. 139 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

Bhagwandass v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 3 F.C. 3; 268 N.R. 337; 2001 FCA 49, refd to. [para. 101].

Okomaniuk v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 432 F.T.R. 143; 2013 FC 473, refd to. [para. 104].

Gebremedhin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 431 F.T.R. 42; 2013 FC 380, refd to. [para. 104].

Ulybin v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 298; 2013 FC 629, refd to. [para. 104].

Baybazarov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 482; 2010 FC 665, refd to. [para. 104].

Kablawi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 167; 2009 FC 283, refd to. [para. 104].

Kaur et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 458 F.T.R. 277; 2014 FC 678, refd to. [para. 129].

Chawla v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 174; 2014 FC 434, refd to. [para. 129].

Hussaini v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 121; 2013 FC 289, refd to. [para. 129].

Rukmangathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 247 F.T.R. 147; 2004 FC 284, refd to. [para. 129].

Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 369; 9 N.R. 115; 68 D.L.R.(3d) 716, refd to. [para. 156].

Ayyalasomayajula v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 145; 2007 FC 248, refd to. [para. 157].

Nguesso v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2015), 474 F.T.R. 217; 2015 FC 102, refd to. [para. 163].

Mendoza v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2007), 317 F.T.R. 118; 2007 FC 934, refd to. [para. 173].

R. v. MacDonald (E.), [2014] 1 S.C.R. 37; 453 N.R. 1; 341 N.S.R.(2d) 353; 1081 A.P.R. 353; 2014 SCC 3, refd to. [para. 177].

Mugesera et al. v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 91; 335 N.R. 220; 2005 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 178].

Castelly v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2008), 329 F.T.R. 311; 2008 FC 788, refd to. [para. 180].

Lai v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2014), 450 F.T.R. 254; 2014 FC 258, affd. (2015), 467 N.R. 198; 2015 FCA 21, refd to. [para. 180].

Sittampalam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2006), 354 N.R. 34; 2006 FCA 326, refd to. [para. 185].

R. v. Venneri (C.), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 211; 432 N.R. 54; 2012 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 186].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 196].

Alberta Teachers' Association v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 654; 424 N.R. 70; 519 A.R. 1; 539 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 61, refd to. [para. 196].

Komolafe v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 192; 2013 FC 431, refd to. [para. 196].

Hill v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1987), 73 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 204].

Brannson v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1981] 2 F.C. 141; 34 N.R. 411 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 204].

Park v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2010), 372 F.T.R. 286; 2010 FC 782, refd to. [para. 205].

Steward v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (No. 2), [1988] 3 F.C. 487; 84 N.R. 240 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 207].

Bankole v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2011), 387 F.T.R. 122; 2011 FC 373, refd to. [para. 209].

Magtibay v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005), 271 F.T.R. 153; 2005 FC 397, refd to. [para. 209].

Andeel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2003), 240 F.T.R. 1; 2003 FC 1085, refd to. [para. 212].

Karakachian v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2009), 364 F.T.R. 1; 2009 FC 948, refd to. [para. 213].

Kahlon v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1986] 3 F.C. 386 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 219].

Liyanagamage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 176 N.R. 4 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 221].

Zazai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 318 N.R. 365; 2004 FCA 89, refd to. [para. 221].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001 c. 27, sect. 33 [para. 175]; sect. 37(1)(a) [para. 35].

Counsel:

Johanne Doyon and Patil Tutunjian, for the applicant;

Normand Lemyre and Lyne Prince, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Doyon & Associées Inc., Counsel, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on June 11-12, 2015, before Bédard, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons, dated July 17, 2015, at Ottawa, Ontario.