Stojka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Stojka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2012-11-27
Neutral citation
2012 FC 1371
File numbers
IMM-214-12
Decision Content
Date: 20121127
Docket: IMM-214-12
Citation: 2012 FC 1371
Toronto, Ontario, November 27, 2012
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
PATRIC STOJKA
(A.K.A. PATRIK STOJKA)
PATRICIA STOJKOVA
ROMEO STOJKA
ESPERANZA LOLITA STOJKOVA
(A.K.A. ESPERANZA LOLIT STOJKOVA)
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] The Applicants are a Roma family, citizens of both the Czech Republic and Slovakia but resident in the Czech Republic. They sought and were refused refugee protection in Canada by a decision of a Member of the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada dated December 21, 2011. This is a judicial review of that decision.
[2] The issue before the Court relates to the Member’s decision respecting the adequacy of state protection. The Member determined that the Applicants had not put before the Board sufficient and reliable evidence that police protection was inadequate. Counsel for the Applicants correctly points out that the Applicants’ oral evidence sets out four incidents where the police were aware or made aware of attacks upon one or more of the Applicants by “skinheads” but did not do anything about it. Applicants’ Counsel correctly points out that, in the absence of a negative finding of credibility, this evidence must be accepted as adequate.
[3] However the matter does not end there. The Member also determined that a number of state agencies and resources were available, even to those of limited education and sophistication such as the Applicants, and that the Applicants led no evidence that they made any attempt to avail themselves of any of these services. Such a finding I find to be within the acceptable range of reasonableness. It must be remembered that there is a presumption that there is adequate state protection and that there is a burden on the Applicants to lead credible and sufficient evidence to rebut that presumption. Here the Applicants led no evidence that they tried to avail themselves of such protection and, if so, what was the result.
[4] I find that even if the Member erred in respect of evidence as to police protection the decision in respect of assistance offered by other agencies is reasonable. The decision will not be set aside.
[5] Applicants’ Counsel made another argument, namely that the Member’s use of the word “persecution” in the reasons meant a finding both that there was sustained or systemic violation of basic human rights and a demonstrative lack of state protection. Professor Hathaway’s book “The Law of Refugee Status; 1991 was cited as authoritative. I find that the Member’s use of this word was more casual than deliberate and no semantical conclusion can be reached such that the decision should be set aside.
[6] No party requested certification.
JUDGMENT
THEREFOR, THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1. The application is dismissed;
2. No question is certified; and
3. No Order as to costs.
“Roger T. Hughes”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-214-12
STYLE OF CAUSE: PATRIC STOJKA (A.K.A. PATRIK STOJKA) PATRICIA STOJKOVA, ROMEO STOJKA, ESPERANZA LOLITA STOJKOVA (A.K.A.
ESPERANZA LOLIT STOJKOVA) V THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: November 26, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: HUGHES J.
DATED: November 27, 2012
APPEARANCES:
Clifford Luyt
FOR THE APPLICANTS
Rafeena Rashid
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Czuma, Ritter
Barristers and Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANTS
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT