IMM-1099-96
Between:
CHUN NGAI LAI,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
MCGILLIS, J.
The applicant has challenged by way of judicial review the decision of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ("Minister") that he is a danger to the public within the meaning of subsection 70(5) of the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. I-2 as amended.
The applicant came to Canada from China in 1988, at the age of 21, and made a refugee claim. He was processed for landing under the Refugee Claimants Designated Class Regulations, SOR/90-40 as amended, and was granted status as a permanent resident on February 25, 1991.
On April 8, 1993, the applicant was convicted of kidnapping and hostage taking. He was sentenced to fourteen years imprisonment on May 21, 1993. The facts giving rise to his conviction reveal, among other things, that he and two co-accused kidnapped a person at gunpoint for ransom, and confined him for five days in an apartment rented solely for the purposes of perpetrating the crime. The victim was blindfolded throughout his ordeal. In his reasons for sentence, the learned trial judge noted that the applicant and his co-accused carefully planned the crime and were motivated by greed. He further observed that "... [b]ecause of what they have done, society must view them now as being dangerous people".
On November 17, 1994, the applicant was ordered deported from Canada. He appealed that deportation order to the Immigration Appeal Board. However, on or about October 23, 1995, the applicant was notified that the Minister would consider, under subsection 70(5) of the Immigration Act, whether he was a danger to the public. He was provided with copies of the documents to be considered by the Minister, and his lawyer made detailed written submissions on his behalf. On February 20, 1997, a package of materials was forwarded to the Minister for her consideration, including a document entitled "Criminal Backlog Review" summarizing the case. That document accurately summarized information which had previously been disclosed to the applicant; it contained no new information. On February 21, 1997, the Minister determined that the applicant was a danger to the public.
Counsel for the applicant submitted, among other things, that the Minister breached the principles of fundamental justice by failing to disclose to the applicant the "Criminal Backlog Review" summary. That issue was recently determined by McKeown, J. in Ngo v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Court file IMM-2257-96, June 17, 1997 (F.C.T.D) in the following terms at page 11 of the decision:.
| "Again the Minister's officials are allowed to interpret the evidence as long as it is substantially correct in their summary in the request for the Minister's opinion. I do not agree that there is any obligation in law for the two reports prepared by the local office and then the national office to be shown to the applicant before the Minister issues the opinion as long as the two opinions do not introduce new evidence or materially mischaracterize the evidence. The summaries cannot be challenged." |
I agree with the approach taken by McKeown, J.
Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the ministerial decision in relation to the applicant under subsection 70(5) of the Immigration Act violates his section 7 Charter rights to liberty and security of the person. Her argument is premised on the assertion that the applicant is a refugee. However, the applicant, who is a permanent resident, has never been determined to be a Convention refugee. In the circumstances, the decision in Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Williams, April 11, 1997, Court file A-855-96 (F.C.A.) is directly applicable to the facts of this case.
Counsel for the applicant also submitted that the Minister acted in bad faith, on the basis of irrelevant criteria or evidence, or without regard to the material. In particular, counsel argued that, since the Minister made her decision in one day, she must have made it without regard to the material. I cannot accept that submission on the basis that it is highly speculative and unsupported by any evidence. In that regard, I note that Strayer, J.A. stated the following in response to a similar argument made by counsel in Minister of Citizenship and Immigration v. Williams (supra), at page 25:
| "The issue is whether it can be said with any assurance that the Minister's delegate acted in bad faith, on the basis of irrelevant criteria or evidence, or without regard to the material. There is simply no evidence that any of these things occurred and I fail to see how the result can be regarded as perverse: that is I do not see how it can be said that it was not open to the Minister's delegate to form the opinion based on Williams' convictions, their nature and frequency, and the comments of the sentencing judge, that he represented a danger to the Canadian public." |
The comments of Strayer, J.A. are equally applicable in the present case, in which there was ample evidence before the Minister to support her decision that the applicant represented a danger to the public. In the circumstances, my intervention in this matter is not warranted.
The application for judicial review is dismissed. The case raises no serious question of general importance.
(Sgd.) "Donna McGillis"
Judge
June 26, 1997
Vancouver, British Columbia
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
STYLE OF CAUSE: CHUN NGAI LAI
- and -
| MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
COURT NO.: IMM-1099-96
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
DATE OF HEARING: June 26, 1997
REASONS FOR ORDER OF MCGILLIS, J. dated
June 26, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Catherine Sullivan for Applicant
Ms. Sandra E. Weafer for Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
David Handelman
Barrister & Solicitor for Applicant
Vancouver, BC
George Thomson for Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada