Thanabalasingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2015) 477 F.T.R. 223 (FC)

• Judge: Fothergill, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 09, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 477 F.T.R. 223 (FC);2015 FC 397

Thanabalasingam v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 477 F.T.R. 223 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.003

Thanabalasingam et al. (applicants) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-1081-14; 2015 FC 397)

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

Federal Court

Fothergill, J.

March 30, 2015.

Summary:

The applicants were three Tamil brothers from Sri Lanka, two of whom arrived in Canada aboard the MV Sun Sea. The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected the applicants' sur place claim for refugee protection.

The Federal Court allowed the applicants' judicial review application, remitting the matter for redetermination by a different RPD member.

Aliens - Topic 1323.7

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Refugee "sur place" - The applicants were three Tamil brothers from Sri Lanka, two of whom arrived in Canada aboard the MV Sun Sea - The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected the applicants' sur place claim for refugee protection - The Federal Court allowed the applicants' judicial review application, remitting the matter for redetermination by a different RPD member - There had been a number of determinations of the issue of sur place claims by persons arriving in Canada aboard the MV Sun Sea and its sister ship the MV Ocean Lady - The RPD could either accept or reject such a sur place claim and its decision could be reasonable - However, it was an error for the RPD to engage in a selective analysis of the documentary evidence and to ignore contradictory evidence without providing a reasonable explanation - The error was compounded where the evidence was especially relevant - Here, the RPD's failure to explain why it discounted an Amnesty International report and other contradictory evidence rendered its decision unreasonable - Further, the RPD's reassurance that the applicants' scrutiny and subsequent release by Canadian officials would "place all three in a better light should any or all of them be returned to Sri Lanka" was unwarranted speculation.

Aliens - Topic 1326.4

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Division - Reasons - [See Aliens - Topic 1323.7 ].

Aliens - Topic 1331

Admission - Refugee protection, Convention refugees and persons in need of protection - Evidence - [See Aliens - Topic 1323.7 ].

Cases Noticed:

B381 v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 457 F.T.R. 137; 2014 FC 608, refd to. [para. 9].

P.M. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 40; 2013 FC 77, refd to. [para. 9].

Ganeshan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 388; 2013 FC 841, refd to. [para. 9].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. A037, [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 318; 2014 FC 754, refd to. [para. 11].

Manoharan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1996] F.C.J. No. 356 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 157 F.T.R. 35 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 12].

Y.S. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 452 F.T.R. 144; 2014 FC 324, refd to. [para. 16].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. B272 (2013), 438 F.T.R. 104; 2013 FC 870, refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

Robert Israel Blanshay, for the applicants;

Bradley Bechard, for the respondent, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Solicitors of Record:

Robert Israel Blanshay, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 9, 2015, by Fothergill, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 30, 2015.