Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

John v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions
Date 2011-12-12
Neutral citation 2011 FC 1457
File numbers IMM-2137-11

Decision Content

 Date: 20111212

Docket: IMM-2137-11

Citation: 2011 FC 1457

Toronto, Ontario, December 12, 2011

PRESENT:     The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell

 

BETWEEN:

 

RACHEL JOHN

 

 

 

Applicant

 

and

 

 

 

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

 

 

 

Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

           REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

 

[1]               In the present Application the Applicant argues that the Humanitarian and Compassionate decision under review was made in reviewable error because it does not contain an analysis of the best interests of her three Canadian born children should she be required to return to Granada.

 

[2]               The central argument placed before the Officer who made the decision is as follows:

The main hardship for the family if they were to return to Grenada would be the lack of support for the children. Their many aunts and uncles live in Canada. They have provided a network for the children. They have been the advocates for the children who have learning disabilities. These learning challenges would not be addressed in Grenada.

 

The family has an extensive family support system in Canada. The children’s great grandmother lives in Toronto. Children often learn from their elders. Moreover, there is no home or place in which the family could reside if they were forced to go to Grenada. The children have no home other than their home in Toronto. It is submitted that it would be confusing and difficult for the children to move to a country, which for them is an unknown.

 

(Tribunal Record, p. 67)

 

[3]               In the decision rendered the Officer acknowledges the evidence stated in the Applicant’s argument but, without analysis, only makes the following finding:

I am not satisfied that these children would face hardship if subject were required to leave Canada (Tribunal Record, p. 4).

 

The law with respect to determining the best interests of children is clear: to come to a reasonable decision, a decision-maker must demonstrate that he or she is alert, alive and sensitive to the best interests of the children under consideration (see: Kolosovs v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2008 FC 165). I find that the Officer failed to meet this primary requirement.

 

 

[4]               As a result, I find that the decision under review was rendered in reviewable error.

ORDER

 

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

The decision under review is set aside and the matter is referred back for redetermination by a different H&C officer.

There is no question to certify.

 

“Douglas R. Campbell”

Judge

 

FEDERAL COURT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

DOCKET:                                          IMM-2137-11

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          RACHEL JOHN V. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

 

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Toronto, Ontario

 

DATE OF HEARING:                      December 12, 2011

 

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER:                                   CAMPBELL J.

 

DATED:                                             December 12, 2011

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Ronald Shacter

 

FOR THE APPLICANT

 

Leanne Briscoe

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

D. Clifford Luyt

Toronto, Ontario

 

FOR THE APPLICANT

Myles J. Kirvan

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Toronto, Ontario

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.