Gavrilov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court headnote
Gavrilov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2004-01-27 Neutral citation 2004 FC 127 File numbers IMM-1842-03 Decision Content Date: 20040127 Docket: IMM -1842-03 Citation: 2004 FC 127 Ottawa, Ontario, this 27th day of January, 2004 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice von Finckenstein BETWEEN: NATALY, OLGA GAVRILOV Applicant AND MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER (delivered from the bench in Toronto on January 26TH and subsequently written for clarification and precision) [1] The central issue in this case is whether the applicant's marriage with Mr. Rylott is genuine or if it is a marriage for the purpose of her gaining admission to Canada. [2] The onus is on the applicant to convince an Immigration Officer that her marriage is bona fides. See: Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3. In this case, the applicant filed a marriage certificate and her application form stated a) that she and her husband lived at the same address, and b) that her husband fully supported her and her daughter. [3] The Immigration Officer dismissed her application on the basis that, as her husband worked in Kitchener, the couple lived apart during the week and were together only on weekends. According to the Immigration Officer's affidavit, she did not consider an earlier humanitarian and compassionate decision by another officer in this matter nor the materia…
Read full judgment
Gavrilov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2004-01-27 Neutral citation 2004 FC 127 File numbers IMM-1842-03 Decision Content Date: 20040127 Docket: IMM -1842-03 Citation: 2004 FC 127 Ottawa, Ontario, this 27th day of January, 2004 PRESENT: The Honourable Justice von Finckenstein BETWEEN: NATALY, OLGA GAVRILOV Applicant AND MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER (delivered from the bench in Toronto on January 26TH and subsequently written for clarification and precision) [1] The central issue in this case is whether the applicant's marriage with Mr. Rylott is genuine or if it is a marriage for the purpose of her gaining admission to Canada. [2] The onus is on the applicant to convince an Immigration Officer that her marriage is bona fides. See: Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3. In this case, the applicant filed a marriage certificate and her application form stated a) that she and her husband lived at the same address, and b) that her husband fully supported her and her daughter. [3] The Immigration Officer dismissed her application on the basis that, as her husband worked in Kitchener, the couple lived apart during the week and were together only on weekends. According to the Immigration Officer's affidavit, she did not consider an earlier humanitarian and compassionate decision by another officer in this matter nor the materials on the FOSS file. [4] This being the case, the Officer had no reason to rule that this was a marriage for immigration purposes only. Such a conclusion, based on the sole fact that the applicant's husband worked in Kitchener and only lived with his wife and her daughter on weekends, is unwarranted If, however, she had based her decision on other facts displayed in the FOSS file, this should have been stated in her affidavit. [5] While it is undisputed that it is the function of an Immigration Officer to weigh the evidence and that this court should not re-weigh the evidence when hearing an application for judicial review (Legault v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. No. 457, 4 F.C. 358 (F.C.A.)), an Immigration Officer must act reasonably when exercising her function. In this day and age, it is unreasonable to automatically consider a marriage suspect merely because the husband and wife work in different towns during the week. [6] The application is accordingly allowed. The decision is set aside and the matter is referred back to another Immigration Officer for reconsideration. ORDER THIS COURT ORDER'S that: 1. The application is accordingly allowed. 2. The decision is set aside and the matter is referred back to another Immigration Officer for reconsideration. JUDGE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: IMM-1842-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: OLGA GAVRILOV et al Applicant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY JANUARY 26, 2003 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: VON FINCKENSTEIN, J. DATED: JANUARY 27, 2004 APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Ed Carrigan For the Applicant Mr. Martin Anderson For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Ed Carrigan Barrister & Solicitor 1475 Bathurst Street, Suite 100 Toronto, Ontario M5P 3G9 For the Applicant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca