Nicol v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Nicol v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2017-03-30
Neutral citation
2017 FC 335
File numbers
IMM-4312-16
Decision Content
Date: 20170330
Docket: IMM-4312-16
Citation: 2017 FC 335
Montebello, Quebec, March 30, 2017
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
NDEY YAMA MBAYE NICOL
AJI SIRA NICOL (MINOR)
YUSUPHA NICOL (MINOR)
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] Mrs. Ndey Yama Mbaye Nicol (the “Principal Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of an Officer, refusing her Humanitarian and Compassionate (“H&C”) application that was made pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”).
[2] The Principal Applicant is a citizen of Gambia. She is the mother of Aji Sira Nicol and Yusupha Nicol, minor children.
[3] The negative H&C decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness; see the decision in Kanthasamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2015] 3 S.C.R. 909.
[4] According to the decision in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190 at paragraph 47, the standard of reasonableness requires that a decision be justifiable, transparent and intelligible, and fall within a range of acceptable outcomes.
[5] Upon reviewing the materials filed and considering the submissions on behalf of the Applicants and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”), and the guidance set in the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanthasamy, supra, particularly with respect to consideration by an officer of psychological reports, I am satisfied that the decision here is not reasonable.
[6] It is not clear from the decision that the Officer accepted or rejected the report prepared by the psychiatrist who attended upon the Applicant. In my opinion, the lack of a clear finding by the Officer on this issue renders the ultimate conclusion unintelligible.
[7] In the result, the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and the matter is remitted to another Officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification arising.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and the matter remitted to another Officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification arising.
"E. Heneghan"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
IMM-4312-16
STYLE OF CAUSE:
NDEY YAMA MBAYE NICOL ET AL v MCI
PLACE OF HEARING:
TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING:
MARCH 29, 2017
JUDGMENT AND reasons:
HENEGHAN J.
DATED:
MARCH 30, 2017
APPEARANCES:
Keith MacMillan
For The ApplicantS
David Knapp
For The Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Keith MacMillan
Barrister and Solicitor
Hamilton, Ontario
For The ApplicantS
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For The Respondent