TA5-05262

TA5-05262

The claim is rejected because the claimant's risk of death arises from Mexico's lack of state‑provided or affordable medical care rather than persecution for a Convention ground; s.97(1)(b)(iv) covers such risks, the claimant failed to show discriminatory or persecutory denial of care, and the constitutional challenge to s.97(1)(b)(iv) is not persuasive in light of Covarrubias.

Citation
TA5-05262
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Counsel for Claimant: Ryan Persad; Counsel for the Minister: L. Christodoulides; Panel Member: A.C. Knevel
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (claim Rejected)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.
Legal Topics
Refugee Protection, Section 97(1)(b)(iv) Medical Exception, Medical Treatment, Section 7 Charter Challenge, Nexus to Convention Grounds
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Refugee Protection Section 97(1)(b)(iv) Medical Exception Medical Treatment Section 7 Charter Challenge +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Ryan Persad

Counsel for Claimant

L. Christodoulides

Counsel for the Minister

A.C. Knevel

Panel Member

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Sections 96 and 97) / Hearing and Decision (claim Rejected)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Whether s.97(1)(b)(iv) exception applies to risk caused by lack of state-funded medical care

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the claimant's risk of death arises from Mexico's lack of state‑provided or affordable medical care rather than persecution for a Convention ground; s.97(1)(b)(iv) covers such risks, the claimant failed to show discriminatory or persecutory denial of care, and the constitutional challenge to s.97(1)(b)(iv) is not persuasive in light of Covarrubias.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is not a Convention refugee nor a person in need of protection.