Soto v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court headnote
Soto v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-09-14 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 1020 File numbers IMM-1014-00 Decision Content Date: 20010914 Docket: IMM-1014-00 Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1020 BETWEEN: CRISTIAN MARCEL VERGARA SOTO Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS ON REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION LEMIEUX J.: [1] After reviewing the written submissions of the parties, I decline to certify the following question proposed by the respondent: Do the principles of procedural fairness require that the PCDO disclose the risk assessment decision to the person concerned for comment prior to the decision on the PDRCC application being considered final? [emphasis mine] [2] The reason for so declining is that this question did not arise in the reasons for judgment delivered. [3] The focus of the respondent's proposed question is on the decision related to the PDRCC application which is within the jurisdiction of the PCDO who is not obligated to circulate his decision on whether the applicant is a member of the PDRCC class for comment. [4] However, before making that decision the underlying risk analysis report, whether it is made by a third person or by the PCDO must, in accordance with the principles in Haghighi v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2000] 4 F.C. 407, be disclosed to the applicant for comment before the decision is made. [5] In my view, this proposition is now settled la…
Read full judgment
Soto v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2001-09-14 Neutral citation 2001 FCT 1020 File numbers IMM-1014-00 Decision Content Date: 20010914 Docket: IMM-1014-00 Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 1020 BETWEEN: CRISTIAN MARCEL VERGARA SOTO Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS ON REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION LEMIEUX J.: [1] After reviewing the written submissions of the parties, I decline to certify the following question proposed by the respondent: Do the principles of procedural fairness require that the PCDO disclose the risk assessment decision to the person concerned for comment prior to the decision on the PDRCC application being considered final? [emphasis mine] [2] The reason for so declining is that this question did not arise in the reasons for judgment delivered. [3] The focus of the respondent's proposed question is on the decision related to the PDRCC application which is within the jurisdiction of the PCDO who is not obligated to circulate his decision on whether the applicant is a member of the PDRCC class for comment. [4] However, before making that decision the underlying risk analysis report, whether it is made by a third person or by the PCDO must, in accordance with the principles in Haghighi v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2000] 4 F.C. 407, be disclosed to the applicant for comment before the decision is made. [5] In my view, this proposition is now settled law. "François Lemieux" J U D G E OTTAWA, ONTARIO SEPTEMBER 14, 2001
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca