Sakthivel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2015) 472 F.T.R. 264 (FC)

• Judge: Boswell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 16, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 472 F.T.R. 264 (FC);2015 FC 292

Sakthivel v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 472 F.T.R. 264 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MR.031

Sayella Sakthivel (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-4307-13; 2015 FC 292)

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

Federal Court

Boswell, J.

March 9, 2015.

Summary:

Sakthivel, a Tamil woman from Sri Lanka, sought permanent residence in Canada, as a member of the family class. She alleged that she had a well-founded fear of persecution. Her application was accompanied by the forms used to apply as a refugee outside Canada or as a member of the country of asylum class, and that was how her application was processed. The immigration officer refused the application. Sakthivel applied for judicial review. The issues included whether the officer applied the correct test in assessing whether Sakthivel's fear of persecution was well-founded, in relation to the claim for protection under s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Federal Court allowed the application. The officer's use of a test or standard of "reasonable grounds" for the threshold of risk was incorrect. The Court returned the matter for redetermination by a different officer.

Aliens - Topic 1322

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Grounds - Well-founded fear of persecution - In relation to the applicant's claim for protection under s. 96 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the immigration officer did not find sufficient evidence which demonstrated reasonable grounds for a well-founded fear of persecution - On judicial review, the respondent argued that the officer did not misstate or misapply the test for assessing whether the applicant's fear of persecution was well-founded, and that the standard of a serious possibility of persecution was embedded within the phrase "well-founded fear" - The Federal Court rejected the argument - "The standard of proof for section 96 has been established for two decades and already has several synonyms. I see no reason or need to endorse another one. An officer deciding a refugee claim should be familiar with the leading cases from the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada, especially on such a basic and well-established question of law as the standard of proof for purposes of section 96 of the Act. Ultimately, the Officer's use of a test or standard of 'reasonable grounds' for the threshold of risk in relation to a claim for protection under section 96 of the Act is incorrect." - See paragraphs 31 to 37.

Cases Noticed:

Ha v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] 3 F.C.R. 195; 316 N.R. 299; 2004 FCA 49, refd to. [para. 10].

Muliadi v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1986] 2 F.C.R. 205; 66 N.R. 8 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Mugesera et al. v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 100; 335 N.R. 229; 2005 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 11].

Krishnapillai et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 161; 2005 FC 244, refd to. [para. 11].

Nabizadeh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 407 F.T.R. 74; 2012 FC 365, refd to. [para. 17].

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. 17].

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. 17].

Ozdemir v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001), 282 N.R. 394; 2001 FCA 331, refd to. [para. 18].

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. 18].

Via Rail Canada Inc. v. National Transportation Agency et al., [2001] 2 F.C. 25; 261 N.R. 184; 193 D.L.R.(4th) 357 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689; 153 N.R. 321; 103 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Janagill v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.T.R. Uned. 221 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Dusabimana v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 761; 2011 FC 1238, refd to. [para. 25].

Ghirmatsion v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] 1 F.C.R. 261; 389 F.T.R. 165; 2011 FC 519, refd to. [para. 25].

Kumarasamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 126; 2010 FC 203, refd to. [para. 25].

Arias v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 707; 2010 FC 1029, refd to. [para. 26].

Awadh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 455 F.T.R. 312; 2014 FC 521, refd to. [para. 26].

Talipoglu et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 448 F.T.R. 270; 23 Imm. L.R.(4th) 147; 2014 FC 172, refd to. [para. 26].

Febles v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2014] 2 F.C.R. 224; 442 N.R. 290; 2012 FCA 324, affd. (2014), 464 N.R. 7; 376 D.L.R.(4th) 387; 2014 SCC 68, refd to. [para. 27].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. A011 (2013), 433 F.T.R. 229; 2013 FC 580, refd to. [para. 27].

B010 v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 443 N.R. 1; 359 D.L.R.(4th) 730; 2013 FCA 87, refd to. [para. 27].

Ruszo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 440 F.T.R. 106; 2013 FC 1004, refd to. [para. 27].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 27].

Kanthasamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 459 N.R. 367; 372 D.L.R.(4th) 539; 2014 FCA 113, refd to. [para. 27].

Alyafi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 465 F.T.R. 114; 2014 FC 952, refd to. [para. 28].

Allergan Inc. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (2012), 440 N.R. 269; 2012 FCA 308, refd to. [para. 28].

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].

Bakhtiari v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 597; 2013 FC 1229, refd to. [para. 30].

Adjei v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1989] 2 F.C. 680; 132 N.R. 24; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 153 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

Chan v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 593; 187 N.R. 321; 128 D.L.R.(4th) 213, refd to. [para. 33].

Counsel:

Micheal Crane, for the applicant;

Stephen Jarvis, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Micheal Crane, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

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

This application for judicial review was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on December 16, 2014, before Boswell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons, dated March 9, 2015, at Ottawa, Ontario.