Tae v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court headnote
Tae v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-09-23 Neutral citation 2003 FC 1096 File numbers IMM-1141-03 Decision Content Date: 20030923 Docket: IMM-1141-03 Citation: 2003 FC 1096 BETWEEN: SENGHOUAT TAE Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER TREMBLAY-LAMER J. [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (the Appeal Division) dismissing the appeal by the applicant for lack of jurisdiction. This decision was based on the finding that the applicant is not a "member of the family class" of the male applicant, her husband, under section 4(3) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172 (the Regulations). This finding is based essentially on the analysis of the contradictory testimony of the spouses. The panel accordingly concluded that there was no credible evidence of contact or communication between the couple prior to the marriage. In view of this lack of evidence, it was impossible to believe in the evolution of a serious relationship leading to the decision to marry out of love and with the intention of living together. [2] However, a review of the evidence in the record reveals that the panel did not comment on much of the evidence which showed that the spouses did communicate with each other prior to marriage, such as long-distance calls, notices of transfers of funds by which the male applicant sen…
Read full judgment
Tae v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2003-09-23 Neutral citation 2003 FC 1096 File numbers IMM-1141-03 Decision Content Date: 20030923 Docket: IMM-1141-03 Citation: 2003 FC 1096 BETWEEN: SENGHOUAT TAE Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER TREMBLAY-LAMER J. [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division (the Appeal Division) dismissing the appeal by the applicant for lack of jurisdiction. This decision was based on the finding that the applicant is not a "member of the family class" of the male applicant, her husband, under section 4(3) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172 (the Regulations). This finding is based essentially on the analysis of the contradictory testimony of the spouses. The panel accordingly concluded that there was no credible evidence of contact or communication between the couple prior to the marriage. In view of this lack of evidence, it was impossible to believe in the evolution of a serious relationship leading to the decision to marry out of love and with the intention of living together. [2] However, a review of the evidence in the record reveals that the panel did not comment on much of the evidence which showed that the spouses did communicate with each other prior to marriage, such as long-distance calls, notices of transfers of funds by which the male applicant sent money to his spouse in Cambodia and some photos of the male applicant and his spouse at the time of his trip to Cambodia in April and May 2002. [3] The panel should at least have explained why it assigned no weight to this evidence, which bore on a central issue in the file, namely, the nature of the relationship between the spouses. As Mr. Justice Evans stated in Cepeda-Gutierrez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1425 (QL): [17] However, the more important the evidence that is not mentioned specifically and analyzed in the agency's reasons, the more willing a court may be to infer from the silence that the agency made an erroneous finding of fact "without regard to the evidence": Bains v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 63 F.T.R. 312 (F.C.T.D.). In other words, the agency's burden of explanation increases with the relevance of the evidence in question to the disputed facts. Thus, a blanket statement that the agency has considered all the evidence will not suffice when the evidence omitted from any discussion in the reasons appears squarely to contradict the agency's finding of fact. Moreover, when the agency refers in some detail to evidence supporting its finding, but is silent on evidence pointing to the opposite conclusion, it may be easier to infer that the agency overlooked the contradictory evidence when making its finding of fact. [Emphasis added] [4] This is an error by the panel that warrants the intervention of the Court. [5] For these reasons, the application for judicial review is allowed. The decision of the Appeal Division is set aside and the matter is returned to the Appeal Division for rehearing by a newly constituted panel. "Danièle Tremblay-Lamer" Judge Montréal, Quebec September 23, 2003 Certified true translation Suzanne Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L. FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Date: 20030923 Docket: IMM-1141-03 Between: SENGHOUAT TAE Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1141-03 STYLE: SENGHOUAT TAE Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION OF CANADA Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: September 23, 2003 REASONS FOR ORDER: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE TREMBLAY-LAMER DATED: September 23, 2003 APPEARANCES: Kathleen Gaudreau FOR THE APPLICANT Michel Pépin FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Kathleen Gaudreau FOR THE APPLICANT Montréal, Quebec Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada Montréal, Quebec
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca