Hegedüs v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Hegedüs v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2011-11-25
Neutral citation
2011 FC 1366
File numbers
IMM-2343-11
Decision Content
Federal Court
Cour fédérale
Date: 20111125
Docket: IMM-2343-11
Citation: 2011 FC 1366
Toronto, Ontario, November 25, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
BETWEEN:
TIBORNÉ HEGEDÜS
(A.K.A TIBORNE HEGEDUS)
ANETT HEGEDÜS
(A.K.A. ANETT HEGEDUS)
TIBOR HEGEDUS
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The present Application concerns a negative decision of the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) in which the Applicants were found not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection. The Applicants, Tiborné Hegedüs, her husband, Tibor Hegedüs and their daughter, Anett Hegedüs claim a well-founded fear of persecution in Hungary because of their Roma ethnicity.
[2] Before the RPD the Applicants described discrimination at school, in housing, medical care and employment, recounted incidents of violence, arson and vandalism to their home, and told of police harassment and inaction. The RPD found that while these events constitute discrimination, they do not rise to the level of persecution. The RPD’s determination is as follows:
I find that the claimants may have been subject to discrimination because of their Roma ethnicity but this discrimination both singularly and cumulatively does not rise to the level of persecution. I also considered the physical attacks on the claimants in the following section and I find that they are not sustained or systematic violation of basic human rights demonstrating a failure of state protection.
[Emphasis added]
(Decision, paras. 30 -31)
This statement is made with no critical analysis. This Court has repeatedly stated that a failure to provide any real explanation as to why the cumulative actions do not amount to persecution is a reviewable error (Tetik v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 1240; Bledy v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 210; Rahman v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 768).
[3] In addition, contrary to the statement made in the quote above, the RPD never did consider the physical attacks on the Applicants.
[4] As a result, I find that the decision under review is made in reviewable error.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the decision under review is set aside and the matter is referred back for redetermination before a differently constituted panel.
There is no question to certify.
“Douglas R. Campbell”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2343-11
STYLE OF CAUSE: TIBORNÉ HEGEDÜS (A.K.A TIBORNE HEGEDUS)
ANETT HEGEDÜS (A.K.A. ANETT HEGEDUS)
TIBOR HEGEDUS v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 24, 2011
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: CAMPBELL J.
DATED: NOVEMBER 25, 2011
APPEARANCES:
Peter G. Ivanyi
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Brad Gotkin
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Rochon Genova LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT