El Shurafa v. Canada (Attorney General), (2014) 461 F.T.R. 208 (FC)

• Judge: O'Keefe, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 11, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 461 F.T.R. 208 (FC);2014 FC 789

El Shurafa v. Can. (A.G.) (2014), 461 F.T.R. 208 (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. AU.028

Ziad El Shurafa (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1352-13; 2014 FC 789; 2014 CF 789)

Indexed As: El Shurafa v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

O'Keefe, J.

August 8, 2014.

Summary:

The applicant ran an immigration consultancy business out of the United Arab Emirates. In May 2012, he was charged with eight counts of counselling misrepresentation, contrary to s. 126 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The applicant returned to Canada to face the charges. He was released on his own recognizance but was required to reside at an address in Dubai. The applicant applied to Passport Canada to have his passport renewed. He was issued a new passport, but with a restriction that it was only valid for travel to the United Arab Emirates. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Aliens - Topic 2507

Naturalization - General - Duty of fairness - [See second Aliens - Topic 2623 ].

Aliens - Topic 2623

Naturalization - Passports - Withholding passport services - El Shurafa ran an immigration consultancy business out of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - In 2012, he was charged under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with eight counts of counselling misrepresentation - El Shurafa returned to Canada to face the charges - He was released on his own recognizance but was required to reside at an address in Dubai - El Shurafa applied to have his passport renewed - Passport Canada issued him a new passport, but with a restriction that it was only valid for travel to the UAE - El Shurafa applied for judicial review - He argued that nothing in the Canadian Passport Order authorized the issuance of geographically restricted passports - The Federal Court dismissed the application - Section 2 of the Canadian Passport Order defined "passport" as a document that, inter alia, facilitated travel outside of Canada - A geographically restricted passport did facilitate travel outside of Canada - The definition did not require that a passport facilitate travel everywhere outside of Canada - It was also well within the Crown's prerogative power over passports to only request safe passage for the bearer from specific countries, and that power was preserved by s. 4(3) - See paragraph 29.

Aliens - Topic 2623

Naturalization - Passports - Withholding passport services - El Shurafa ran an immigration consultancy business out of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - In 2012, he was charged under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with eight counts of counselling misrepresentation - El Shurafa returned to Canada to face the charges - He was released on his own recognizance but was required to reside at an address in Dubai - El Shurafa applied to have his passport renewed - Passport Canada issued him a new passport, but with a restriction that it was only valid for travel to the UAE - El Shurafa applied for judicial review - He argued that Passport Canada unfairly failed to inquire about his business, family circumstances, the nature of the crimes he was alleged to have committed, and his agreements with the prosecutors - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The decision itself was essentially administrative and beared little resemblance to the adjudicative process employed by the court - Section 5 of the Canadian Passport Order suggested that applicants were primarily responsible for providing information to support their applications - All of the information that Passport Canada allegedly ignored were facts within El Shurafa's personal knowledge and which he easily could have mentioned - Further, Passport Canada gave him the opportunity to supply more information in its decision letter - The duty of fairness did not require Passport Canada to do anything more - See paragraphs 30 to 35.

Aliens - Topic 2623

Naturalization - Passports - Withholding passport services - El Shurafa ran an immigration consultancy business out of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - In 2012, he was charged under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with eight counts of counselling misrepresentation - El Shurafa returned to Canada to face the charges - He was released on his own recognizance but was required to reside at an address in Dubai - El Shurafa applied to have his passport renewed - Passport Canada issued him a new passport, but with a restriction that it was only valid for travel to the UAE - El Shurafa applied for judicial review - He argued that Passport Canada's decision was unreasonable because it was based on the misconception that the recognizance imposed travel restrictions - The Federal Court dismissed the application - Passport Canada did misunderstand the conditions in the recognizance - However, that misunderstanding did not affect Passport Canada's reasoning or decision - Rather, the decision letter said it was refusing El Shurafa a passport because he had been charged for committing an offence under the Act - It mentioned the residency requirement only to explain why it decided to issue him a geographically-restricted passport so that he could travel between his home in Dubai and Canada - See paragraphs 40 to 43.

Aliens - Topic 2623

Naturalization - Passports - Withholding passport services - El Shurafa ran an immigration consultancy business out of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - In 2012, he was charged under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with eight counts of counselling misrepresentation - El Shurafa returned to Canada to face the charges - He was released on his own recognizance but was required to reside at an address in Dubai - El Shurafa applied to have his passport renewed - Passport Canada issued him a new passport, but with a restriction that it was only valid for travel to the UAE - El Shurafa applied for judicial review - He argued that Passport Canada's decision was unreasonable because it wrongly grouped his offences in with offences relating to human trafficking and illegal migration - The Federal Court dismissed the application - El Shurafa did not provide Passport Canada with the details of the allegations made against him - All the decision-maker knew was that he had been charged with offences under s. 126 of the Act, and those could be related to illegal migration - It was reasonable to deny passport services to people charged with such offences in general - The interference with El Shurafa's mobility rights was justified - See paragraphs 44 to 46.

Aliens - Topic 5074

Offences - Illegal entry - Organizing or assisting illegal entry (human smuggling or trafficking) - [See third and fourth Aliens - Topic 2623 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 589

Mobility rights - Violation - What constitutes - Passports - [See fourth Aliens - Topic 2623 ].

Cases Noticed:

Kamel v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] 4 F.C.R. 449; 388 N.R. 4; 2009 FCA 21, 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. 22].

Pavicevic v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 440 F.T.R. 45; 20 Imm. L.R.(4th) 37; 2013 FC 997, refd to. [para. 23].

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. 23].

Black v. Chrétien et al. (2001), 147 O.A.C. 141; 54 O.R.(3d) 215; 199 D.L.R.(4th) 228 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Khadr v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2007] 2 F.C.R. 218; 362 N.R. 378 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 26].

Doré v. Barreau du Québec, [2012] 1 S.C.R. 395; 428 N.R. 146; 2012 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 27].

Villamil v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 435 F.T.R. 88; 2013 FC 686, refd to. [para. 28].

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. 28].

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. 31].

Mavi et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2011] 2 S.C.R. 504; 417 N.R. 126; 279 O.A.C. 63; 2011 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 31].

Buschau et al. v. Rogers Communications Inc. (2012), 434 N.R. 44; 352 D.L.R.(4th) 151; 2012 FCA 197, refd to. [para. 45].

Ochapowace First Nation et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2007), 316 F.T.R. 19; 2007 FC 920, refd to. [para. 45].

Counsel:

Christopher Robinson, for the applicant;

Melissa Grant, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

CIR Law Inc., Ferguson's Cove, Nova Scotia, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 11, 2014, before O'Keefe, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons at Ottawa, Ontario, on August 8, 2014.