Tvasyk v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court headnote
Tvasyk v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2004-12-08 Neutral citation 2004 FC 1716 File numbers IMM-8103-03 Decision Content Date: 20041208 Docket: IMM-8103-03 Citation: 2004 FC 1716 Toronto, Ontario, December 8th, 2004 Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell BETWEEN: SVITLANA TVASYK Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] As a result of an interview with a Visa Officer on August 20, 2003, Mrs. Svitlana Tvasyk, an Applicant for a visa to visit Canada, was denied the visa. The present judicial review application challenges this decision on a ground that the decision was based on a fundamental misunderstanding. [2] In July 2002, Mrs. Tvasyk was interviewed by a Visa Officer respecting her application to visit Canada, and was denied the opportunity because she lied in the interview. The background for this lie is that, in April 2002, Mrs. Tvasyk and her husband both applied for a visa, but only Mr. Tvasyk was given one. At the time of the July 2002 interview, Mr. Tvasyk had not yet travelled to Canada, but, for whatever misguided reason, Mrs. Tvasyk said that he had. Once this lie was exposed, Mrs. Tvasyk admitted it, and, as a consequence, her visa was denied. [3] In the August 2003 interview, in yet another attempt by Mrs. Tvasyk to obtain a visitor's visa, the issue of Mr. Tvasyk's travel was again discussed. I find that the proximate cause of the…
Read full judgment
Tvasyk v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2004-12-08 Neutral citation 2004 FC 1716 File numbers IMM-8103-03 Decision Content Date: 20041208 Docket: IMM-8103-03 Citation: 2004 FC 1716 Toronto, Ontario, December 8th, 2004 Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Campbell BETWEEN: SVITLANA TVASYK Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] As a result of an interview with a Visa Officer on August 20, 2003, Mrs. Svitlana Tvasyk, an Applicant for a visa to visit Canada, was denied the visa. The present judicial review application challenges this decision on a ground that the decision was based on a fundamental misunderstanding. [2] In July 2002, Mrs. Tvasyk was interviewed by a Visa Officer respecting her application to visit Canada, and was denied the opportunity because she lied in the interview. The background for this lie is that, in April 2002, Mrs. Tvasyk and her husband both applied for a visa, but only Mr. Tvasyk was given one. At the time of the July 2002 interview, Mr. Tvasyk had not yet travelled to Canada, but, for whatever misguided reason, Mrs. Tvasyk said that he had. Once this lie was exposed, Mrs. Tvasyk admitted it, and, as a consequence, her visa was denied. [3] In the August 2003 interview, in yet another attempt by Mrs. Tvasyk to obtain a visitor's visa, the issue of Mr. Tvasyk's travel was again discussed. I find that the proximate cause of the refusal to grant Mrs. Tvasyk a visa after this interview was a belief on the Visa Officer's part that she again lied on the topic of her husband's travel. I also find that, for the decision under review to withstand this judicial review, the Visa Officer's belief must be clearly substantiated by the record before me. [4] With respect to substantiation, there is a clear conflict on the record. On the one hand, Mrs. Tvasyk in an affidavit sworn December 12, 2003, states that in the August 20, 2003 interview she was asked why she lied in her previous application, being the interview in July 2002. On the other hand, the Visa Officer in her affidavit sworn in August 2004, states that a new lie was expressed in the meeting of August 20, 2003, and was not a reiteration of the lie expressed in the interview of July of 2002. [5] I find that the CAIPS notes with respect to the interview on August 20, 2003, and the cross-examination conducted on the Visa Officer's affidavit on November 8, 2004, do not assist in resolving the conflict. [6] As a result, I find that there is no clear substantiation for the Visa Officer's belief. On this basis, and as a matter of fairness, I find that Mrs. Tvasyk is entitled to a fresh opportunity to make her application for a visitor's visa. ORDER Accordingly, I set aside the decision of August 30, 2003, and refer the matter back for redetermination before a different visa officer. With respect to the redetermination, I direct that it be conducted without any regard to the findings of fact made in reaching the decision set aside. "Douglas R. Campbell" J.F.C. FEDERAL COURT Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: IMM-8103-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: SVITLANA TVASYK Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 7 , 2004 REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: CAMPBELL J. DATED: DECEMBER 8, 2004 APPEARANCES BY: Mario D. Bellissimo FOR THE APPLICANT Martin Anderson FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mario D. Bellissimo Ormston, Bellissimo, Younan Barristers & Solicitors Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT FEDERAL COURT Date: 20041208 Docket: IMM-8103-03 BETWEEN: SVITLANA TVASYK Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca