Date: 19980917
Docket: IMM-4041-97
BETWEEN:
KURT CHILCOTT
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an application pursuant to Section 82.1 of the Immigration Act for judicial review of a decision of W.A. Sheppit, Delegate of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the "Minister"), signed December 19, 1996, wherein the Minister determined the applicant to be a "danger to the public" in Canada pursuant to subsection 70(5) of the Immigration Act .
[2] The applicant"s counsel has based his application on three major arguments:
1. FAIRNESS - LAWYER"S SUBMISSIONS
[3] The applicant"s counsel submitted that the circumstances surrounding the Minister"s delegate decision is a clear example of the application of the doctrine of the legitimate expectations. Counsel believes that the conversation between Ms. Line Castonguay and the previous lawyer Me Aubin, left Me Aubin under the impression that he could table documents and submissions after the 15 days" delay.
[4] I read the two affidavits and I understand that there is a misunderstanding between the two individuals. But there is nothing wrong in the process when Ms. Castonguay after having received writing representations signed by the applicant, Mr. Kurt Chilcott, sent to the office of the Minister"s delegate the documents enumerated in the letter of November 1st , 1996.
[5] And referring to the letter sent by Mr. W. A. Sheppit, on May 20, 1997 to Me Michel Aubin.
[6] This letter says:
| J"écris en réponse à vos lettres en date du 26 février, 24 mars 1997 avec les pièces jointes. |
| En particulier, je réponds à votre demande de reconsidérer ma décision rendue le 19 décembre 1996, relativement à l"avis que, conformément au paragraphe 70(5) et le sous-alinéa 46.01(1) (e) (iv) de la Loi sur l"immigration, votre client constitue un danger pour le public au Canada. |
| Après avoir examiné cette demande, je suis d"avis qu"elle ne contient pas des motifs suffisants pour justifier une réouverture du dossier et je ne suis pas prêt à reconsidérer ma décision. Veuillez prendre note que cette détermination ne constitue pas une nouvelle décision concernant un avis de danger pour le public au Canada de votre client. |
| Ma décision rendue le 19 décembre 1996 demeure en vigueur, |
| Bien à vous, |
| W.A. Sheppit |
| Délégué du Ministre |
| Directeur général |
Règlement des cas
[7] Even if the applicant has not had a chance to table supplementary documents before the decision made by the Minister"s delegate on December 19, 1996, it appears that additional submissions and documents were sent to CIC by the applicant"s attorney on February 26 and March 24, 1997 and that these submissions and documents were in fact presented to the Minister"s delegate for his consideration.
[8] Consequently, the applicant suffered no prejudice from the misunderstanding between Me Aubin and Ms. Castonguay, as the documents from Me Aubin were given due consideration by the Minister"s delegate.
2. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS
[9] The applicant alleges that two documents should have been submitted to the Minister"s delegate for consideration, a criminal profile report completed on October 7, 1996 and a community assessment completed on October 25, 1996.
[10] As it appears from Exhibit D of the affidavit of Lyne Castonguay, both of these documents were in fact presented by the applicant"s attorney to the Minister"s delegate for his consideration.
3. UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS
[11] The applicant"s attorney mentioned that the memorandum signed by Lyne Castonguay, "agente d"investigation", on November 1, 1996, particularly regarding the criminal record of the applicant contains some unsubstantiated allegations, particularly on page 4 of that document:
Le nombre d"accusations avec violence, le traffic de drogue et la possession d"arme nous permettent de croire que M. Chilcott peut représenter un danger pour le public.
[12] This is accurate that some accusations were dropped and Ms. Castonguay mentioned it clearly in her memorandum.
[13] But the statements included in Ms. Castonguay"s memorandum are not unsubstantiated allegations but rather constitute information about the applicant provided by a police source as mentioned.
[14] I have carefully reviewed the standard for judicial review applied in such decisions (danger to the public) formulated by Mr. Justice Strayer in M.C.I. v. Williams, (A-855-96, April 11, 1997).
[15] The application for judicial review is dismissed.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 17, 1998