John v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

John v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2011-12-12
Neutral citation
2011 FC 1457
File numbers
IMM-2137-11
Decision Content
Date: 20111212
Docket: IMM-2137-11
Citation: 2011 FC 1457
Toronto, Ontario, December 12, 2011
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell
BETWEEN:
RACHEL JOHN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] In the present Application the Applicant argues that the Humanitarian and Compassionate decision under review was made in reviewable error because it does not contain an analysis of the best interests of her three Canadian born children should she be required to return to Granada.
[2] The central argument placed before the Officer who made the decision is as follows:
The main hardship for the family if they were to return to Grenada would be the lack of support for the children. Their many aunts and uncles live in Canada. They have provided a network for the children. They have been the advocates for the children who have learning disabilities. These learning challenges would not be addressed in Grenada.
The family has an extensive family support system in Canada. The children’s great grandmother lives in Toronto. Children often learn from their elders. Moreover, there is no home or place in which the family could reside if they were forced to go to Grenada. The children have no home other than their home in Toronto. It is submitted that it would be confusing and difficult for the children to move to a country, which for them is an unknown.
(Tribunal Record, p. 67)
[3] In the decision rendered the Officer acknowledges the evidence stated in the Applicant’s argument but, without analysis, only makes the following finding:
I am not satisfied that these children would face hardship if subject were required to leave Canada (Tribunal Record, p. 4).
The law with respect to determining the best interests of children is clear: to come to a reasonable decision, a decision-maker must demonstrate that he or she is alert, alive and sensitive to the best interests of the children under consideration (see: Kolosovs v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) 2008 FC 165). I find that the Officer failed to meet this primary requirement.
[4] As a result, I find that the decision under review was rendered in reviewable error.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
The decision under review is set aside and the matter is referred back for redetermination by a different H&C officer.
There is no question to certify.
“Douglas R. Campbell”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2137-11
STYLE OF CAUSE: RACHEL JOHN V. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: December 12, 2011
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: CAMPBELL J.
DATED: December 12, 2011
APPEARANCES:
Ronald Shacter
FOR THE APPLICANT
Leanne Briscoe
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
D. Clifford Luyt
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT