Y.Z. v. Can. (M.C.I.), 2015 FC 892

• Judge: Boswell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 23, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 FC 892;[2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.055

Y.Z. v. Can. (M.C.I.), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.055

MLB being edited

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

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.055

Y.Z. and The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondents)

(IMM-3700-13)

G.S. and C.S. (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-5940-14; 2015 FC 892)

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

Federal Court

Boswell, J.

July 23, 2015.

Summary:

In 2012, s. 110(2)(d.1) was added to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). That section denied access to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board for all refugee claimants from any country designated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration pursuant to s. 109.1 of the IRPA. The applicants, three refugee claimants from designated countries of origin and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL), applied for judicial review, challenging the constitutionality of s. 110(2)(d.1). The applicants alleged that denying refugee claimants from designated countries of origin an appeal to the RAD violated ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter. Also in issue was whether the CARL had standing as a public interest litigant. The Ministers also sought to strike out many of the affidavits filed by the applicants.

The Federal Court allowed the judicial review applications. The court held that s. 110(2)(d.1) violated s. 15 of the Charter and was not saved by s. 1 of the Charter. While s. 7 was engaged, any deprivation of those interests accorded with the principles of fundamental justice. As a remedy for the s. 15 violation, the court declared that s. 110(2)(d.1) was of no force and effect. The court declined to suspend the declaration of invalidity. The court certified questions relating to the constitutionality of s. 110(2)(d.1) for appellate consideration.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Administrative Law - Topic 3345

Judicial review - General - Practice - Affidavit evidence - Three refugee claimants and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers filed judicial review applications, alleging that s. 110(2)(d.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which denied refugee claimants from designated countries of origin an appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division, violated ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter - The Ministers applied to strike some of the affidavits filed by the applicants - The Federal Court reviewed the criteria for admission of affidavit evidence on judicial review and especially for expert evidence - Applying those criteria, the court refused to strike any of the applicants' affidavits, or portions thereof - See paragraphs 44 to 101.

Aliens - Topic 1326.2

Admission - Refugees - Refugee Protection Division and Refugee Appeal Division - Ineligibility for determination by - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1002 and Civil Rights - Topic 3181 ].

Aliens - Topic 1853

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration and Refugee Board (incl. all divisions) - Right of appeal - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1002 and Civil Rights - Topic 3181 ].

Aliens - Topic 4061.1

Practice - Judicial review and appeals - Standing - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8583 ].

Aliens - Topic 4066.1

Practice - Judicial review and appeals - Bars (incl. where applicant from designated country of origin) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1002 and Civil Rights - Topic 3181 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1002

Discrimination - Immigration - Refugees - Three refugee claimants alleged that s. 110(2)(d.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which denied refugee claimants from designated countries of origin (DCO) an appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division, violated s. 15(1) of the Charter - The Federal Court agreed - Section 110(2)(d.1) was clearly a distinction on the basis of the national origin of a refugee claimant (i.e., the section created two classes of refugee claimants based on national origin: those foreign nationals from a DCO and those who were not from a DCO) - That distinction created a disadvantage by perpetuating prejudice or stereotyping - There was a denial of substantive equality to the claimants from DCO countries based upon the national origin of such claimants - The infringement could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 102 to 131 and 144 to 170.

Civil Rights - Topic 3181

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Right of appeal - Three refugee claimants alleged that s. 110(2)(d.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which denied refugee claimants from designated countries of origin (DCO) an appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division, violated s. 7 of the Charter - The Federal Court held that while s. 7 was engaged, any deprivation of those interests accorded with the principles of fundamental justice - The principles of fundamental justice did not include access to an appeal - The DCO regime was not overbroad or grossly disproportionate - See paragraphs 133 to 143.

Civil Rights - Topic 3193

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Procedure not contrary to fundamental justice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3181 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 5662

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Immigration - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1002 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1002 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.2

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Declaration of statute invalidity - The Federal Court declared that s. 110(2)(d.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which denied refugee claimants from designated countries of origin (DCO) an appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), violated s. 15(1) of the Charter and was, therefore, of no force and effect - The court refused to suspend its declaration, stating that "An immediate declaration of invalidity may put some increased pressure on the resources of the RAD and may delay some removals, but every day that paragraph 110(2)(d.1) is in force is a day that claimants from DCOs are not 'equal before and under the law' and will be deprived of their rights 'to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination'. Anyone deported in the meantime may be returned to a persecutory situation because they could not appeal an erroneous RPD decision to the RAD. Rectifying that inequality as soon as possible outweighs any administrative burdens to the government" - See paragraphs 175 and 176.

Civil Rights - Topic 8583

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Who may raise Charter issues (incl. standing) - Three refugee claimants and the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers (CARL), filed judicial review applications, alleging that s. 110(2)(d.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which denied refugee claimants from designated countries of origin an appeal to the Refugee Appeal Division, violated ss. 7 and 15(1) of the Charter - An issue arose as to whether the CARL violated the procedural rules by including itself as a party in one of the applicant's applications and whether it had public interest standing - The Federal Court held that there was nothing improper about the way the CARL had asserted its standing, and that public interest standing should be afforded to CARL - See paragraphs 25 to 43.

Civil Rights - Topic 8668

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - What constitutes a breach of s. 15 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1002 ].

Practice - Topic 221

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Public interest standing (incl. requirements of) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8583 ].

Cases Noticed:

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301; 2003 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 5].

Kroon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 252 F.T.R. 257; 2004 FC 697, refd to. [para. 5].

Canadian Doctors for Refugee Care et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2014), 458 F.T.R. 1; 28 Imm. L.R.(4th) 1; 2014 FC 651, refd to. [para. 9].

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 129, refd to. [para. 19].

Phillips v. Nova Scotia (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy) - see Philips et al. v. Richard, J.

Ishaq v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.057; 381 D.L.R.(4th) 541; 2015 FC 156, refd to. [para. 19].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 20].

Peter v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) (2014), 467 F.T.R. 169; 13 Imm. L.R.(4th) 169; 2014 FC 1073, refd to. [para. 22].

Al Atawnah et al. v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al., [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.009; 2015 FC 774, refd to. [para. 22].

Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2010), 294 B.C.A.C. 70; 498 W.A.C. 70; 2010 BCCA 439, affd. [2012] 2 S.C.R. 524; 434 N.R. 257; 325 B.C.A.C. 1; 553 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 25].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 336 N.R. 101; 256 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2005 FCA 213, refd to. [para. 36].

Finlay v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 607; 71 N.R. 338, refd to. [para. 37].

Bull (David) Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. et al., [1995] 1 F.C.R. 588; 176 N.R. 48; 1994 CanLII 3529 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Apotex Inc. v. Governor-in-Council et al. (2007), 370 N.R. 336; 2007 FCA 374, refd to. [para. 37].

JP Morgan Asset Management (Canada) Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [2014] 2 F.C. 250; 450 N.R. 91; 2013 FCA 250, refd to. [para. 37].

Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2012), 290 O.A.C. 236; 346 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 2012 ONCA 186, refd to. [para. 38].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1; 17 D.L.R.(4th) 422, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 419, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Abbey (W.N.) (2009), 254 O.A.C. 9; 97 O.R.(3d) 330; 2009 ONCA 624, refd to. [para. 86 ].

R. v. Goltz, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 485; 131 N.R. 1; 5 B.C.A.C. 161; 11 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 88].

Bedford et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101; 452 N.R. 1; 312 O.A.C. 53; 2013 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 88].

Armstrong v. Canada (Attorney General), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 613; 2005 FC 1013, refd to. [para. 89].

Gravel v. Telus Communications Inc., [2011] N.R. Uned. 110; 2011 FCA 14, refd to. [para. 91].

Mayne Pharma (Canada) Inc. v. Aventis Pharma Inc. et al. (2005), 331 N.R. 373; 2005 FCA 50, refd to. [para. 91].

Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada et al. v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (2012), 428 N.R. 297; 2012 FCA 22, refd to. [para. 92].

Meggeson v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 434 N.R. 52; 2012 FCA 175, refd to. [para. 92].

Hinton v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 F.C.R. 476; 379 N.R. 336; 2008 FCA 215, refd to. [para. 92].

Abbott and Haliburton Co. Ltd. et al. v. WBLI Chartered Accountants (2015), 470 N.R. 324; 360 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 1135 A.P.R. 1; 383 D.L.R.(4th) 429; 2015 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. D.D., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 275; 259 N.R. 156; 136 O.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 43, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 267, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Hape (L.R.), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292; 363 N.R. 1; 227 O.A.C. 191; 2007 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 103].

Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 396; 412 N.R. 149; 300 B.C.A.C. 120; 509 W.A.C. 120; 2011 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 104].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 106].

Pawar v. Canada (1999), 247 N.R. 271; 67 C.R.R.(2d) 284 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].

A. v. B., [2013] 1 S.C.R. 61; 439 N.R. 1; 2013 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 109].

Quebec (Attorney General) v. A. - see A. v. B.

Schlifer (Barbra) Commemorative Clinic v. Canada (2014), 121.O.R.(3d) 733; 2014 ONSC 5140, refd to. [para. 114].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 114].

Taypotat v. Taypotat et al. (2015), 471 N.R. 173; 2015 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 116].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Gabor, [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.047; 2014 FC 785, refd to. [para. 135].

R. v. Meltzer and Laison, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1764; 96 N.R. 391, refd to. [para. 140].

Kourtessis et al. v. Minister of National Revenue et al., [1993] 2 S.C.R. 53; 153 N.R. 1; 27 B.C.A.C. 81; 45 W.A.C. 81; 102 D.L.R.(4th) 456, refd to. [para. 140].

Charkaoui, Re, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350; 358 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 143].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1; 2000 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 145].

Canadian Federation of Students (B.C.) et al. v. Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 295; 389 N.R. 98; 272 B.C.A.C. 29; 459 W.A.C. 29; 2009 SCC 31, refd to. [para. 145].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 146].

Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony et al. v. Alberta (2009), 390 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 1; 462 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 148].

JTI-Macdonald Corp. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610; 364 N.R. 89; 2007 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 150].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 155, refd to. [para. 152].

Osborne, Millar and Barnhart et al. v. Canada (Treasury Board) et al., [1991] 2 S.C.R. 69; 125 N.R. 241; 82 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 4 C.R.R.(2d) 30; 9 C.L.L.C. 14,026; 37 C.C.E.L. 135, refd to. [para. 152].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, refd to. [para. 153].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1; 127 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 161].

Mounted Police Association of Ontario et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2015), 466 N.R. 199; 328 O.A.C. 1; 380 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 2015 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 161].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 175].

Corbiere et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 176].

Zhang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 446 N.R. 382; 2013 FCA 168, refd to. [para. 181].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 144]; sect. 7 [para. 132]; sect. 15(1) [para. 102].

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 110(2)(d.1) [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 109.1(1) [para. 10].

Counsel:

Maureen Silcoff, for the applicant, Y.Z.;

Jared Will, for the applicant, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers;

Prasanna Balasundaram, for the applicants, G.S. and C.S.;

David Tyndale, Jelena Urosevic, Suran Bhattacharyya, Nimanthika Kaneira and Lucan Gregory, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Silcoff, Shacter, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant, Y.Z.;

Jared Will, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant, Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers;

Downtown Legal Services, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants, G.S. and C.S.;

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

These applications were heard in Toronto, Ontario, on February 24 and 25, 2015, before Boswell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on July 23, 2015.