Durrant v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Source text
Durrant v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2010-07-21 Neutral citation 2010 FC 773 File numbers IMM-2917-09 Decision Content Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20100721 Docket: IMM-2917-09 Citation: 2010 FC 773 Toronto, Ontario, July 21, 2010 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish BETWEEN: NESLYN CORVETTE DURRANT MONTSICA ZEAVECIA DURRANT MOSRAN MOZARRO DURRANT Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] The applicants’ application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was based upon a number of factors, including their establishment and family ties in Canada and the best interests of a child affected by the application. There was also a significant risk aspect to the application relating to ongoing threats faced by the family from a violent criminal about to be released from prison in St. Vincent. [2] The H&C application was assessed by the same Officer who decided the family’s application for a Pre-removal Risk Assessment. That decision was also negative, with the PRRA Officer finding that adequate state protection was available to the family in St. Vincent. [3] While not consenting to the granting of the application for judicial review, counsel for the respondent concedes that in assessing the risk component of the family’s H&C application, the Officer committed the same error as was identified by the Fe…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Durrant v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2010-07-21 Neutral citation 2010 FC 773 File numbers IMM-2917-09 Decision Content Federal Court Cour fédérale Date: 20100721 Docket: IMM-2917-09 Citation: 2010 FC 773 Toronto, Ontario, July 21, 2010 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish BETWEEN: NESLYN CORVETTE DURRANT MONTSICA ZEAVECIA DURRANT MOSRAN MOZARRO DURRANT Applicants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT [1] The applicants’ application for permanent residence from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was based upon a number of factors, including their establishment and family ties in Canada and the best interests of a child affected by the application. There was also a significant risk aspect to the application relating to ongoing threats faced by the family from a violent criminal about to be released from prison in St. Vincent. [2] The H&C application was assessed by the same Officer who decided the family’s application for a Pre-removal Risk Assessment. That decision was also negative, with the PRRA Officer finding that adequate state protection was available to the family in St. Vincent. [3] While not consenting to the granting of the application for judicial review, counsel for the respondent concedes that in assessing the risk component of the family’s H&C application, the Officer committed the same error as was identified by the Federal Court of Appeal in its recent decision in Hinzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FCA 177. That is, insofar as the risk component of the application was concerned, “the Officer’s analysis is really nothing more than a risk assessment which stops short at the availability of state protection …”: Hinzman at para. 27. [4] No consideration was given by the Officer to “public policy considerations and humanitarian grounds” as they related to the question of risk: Hinzman at para. 26. This is an error. The question on an H&C application is not whether adequate state protection is available to the applicants in their country of origin, but rather whether, having regard to all of the applicants’ individual personal circumstances, they would face unusual, undeserved or disproportionate hardship if returned home. [5] Consequently, the application for judicial review is allowed. No question arises for certification. JUDGMENT THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that: 1. This application for judicial review is allowed, and the matter is remitted to a different Officer for re-determination in accordance with these reasons; and 2. No serious question of general importance is certified. “Anne Mactavish” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2917-09 STYLE OF CAUSE: NESLYN CORVETTE DURRANT, MONTSICA ZEAVECIA DURRANT, MOSRAN MOZARRO DURRANT v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: July 21, 2010 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: Mactavish J. DATED: July 21, 2010 APPEARANCES: Solomon Orjiwuru FOR THE APPLICANT Ian Hicks FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: SOLOMON ORJIWURU Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT MYLES J. KIRVAN Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
R v Brown
[2022] 1 SCR 506