Reid v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
- Citation
- 2020 FC 252
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 14 February 2020
- Posture
- Judicial Review of Refusal of Permanent Residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds Under S.25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Judicial Review Final Judgment and Remittal
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 14 February 2020
- Posture
- Judicial Review of Refusal of Permanent Residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds Under S.25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Judicial Review Final Judgment and Remittal
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The decision was unreasonable because the Officer's reasons do not demonstrate consideration of the totality of the evidence, including family relationships and the marital relationship; accordingly the judicial review is allowed, the decision set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination by another officer.
Court disposition
Application for judicial review allowed; decision of the Senior Immigration Officer set aside and matter remitted to another officer for redetermination.
Orders
- The decision of the Senior Immigration Officer is set aside.
- The matter is remitted to another officer for redetermination.
- There is no question for certification arising.
02
Material facts
Parties
Martin Evans Reid
Applicant Counsel: Trudi-Ann NewbyThe Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent Counsel: Meva MotwaniAmounts and remedies
- Number of Narcotics Trafficking Convictions: 3
- Year First Entered Canada as PR: 1,990
- Year Deported: 2,000
- Year Returned to Canada Without Status: 2,000
- Number of Children Fathered With Wife: 2
- Ages of Children: 19
- Younger Child Age: 16
- Stepdaughter Age: 33
03
Procedural history
Posture
Judicial Review of Refusal of Permanent Residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds Under S.25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Judicial Review Final Judgment and Remittal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Senior Immigration Officer unreasonably failed to consider the totality of the evidence concerning establishment and family relationships
- 02
Whether the Officer unreasonably assessed the best interests of the Applicant's child
- 03
What standard of review applies to the Officer's decision
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Officer failed to consider all evidence of establishment in Canada and letters of support from family and friends and unreasonably assessed the best interests of his children, rendering the decision unreasonable.
- Respondent
- The Officer's decision was reasonable and made with regard to all of the evidence before him.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
Administrative decisions are presumptively reviewed for reasonableness, requiring decisions to be justifiable, transparent and intelligible and fall within a range of acceptable outcomes.
- 02
Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190
The reasonableness standard requires that a decision be defensible on law and facts as elaborated in Dunsmuir.
- 03
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s.25(1)
Permanent residence may be granted on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The decision was unreasonable because the Officer's reasons do not demonstrate consideration of the totality of the evidence, including family relationships and the marital relationship; accordingly the judicial review is allowed, the decision set aside and the matter remitted for redetermination by another officer.
Obiter and limits
- It was unnecessary to address the arguments about the assessment of the best interests of the Applicant's 16‑year‑old daughter.
- There is no question for certification arising from this matter.
Court disposition
Application for judicial review allowed; decision of the Senior Immigration Officer set aside and matter remitted to another officer for redetermination.
- The decision of the Senior Immigration Officer is set aside.
- The matter is remitted to another officer for redetermination.
- There is no question for certification arising.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 14 February 2020
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 14 February 2020
Reid v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2020-02-14 Neutral citation 2020 FC 252 File numbers IMM-2781-19 Decision Content Date: 20200214 Docket: IMM-2781-19 Citation: 2020 FC 252 Ottawa, Ontario, February 14, 2020 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:
MARTIN EVANS REID Applicant and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Mr. Martin Evans Reid (the “Applicant”) seeks judicial review of the decision of a Senior Immigration Officer (the “Officer”), refusing his application for permanent residence on Humanitarian and Compassionate (“H and C”) grounds pursuant to subsection 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the “Act”). [2] The Applicant is a citizen of Jamaica. He first entered Canada in 1990 as a permanent resident. He was convicted on three counts of trafficking in a narcotic in May 1997 and deported to Jamaica on January 19, 2000. [3] The Applicant returned to Canada in 2000, without status and has remained here since that time. [4] In 1999, the Applicant married. He was involved in the parenting of his wife’s young daughter, who is now 33 years of age and fathered two children with his wife, who are now 19 and 16 years of age. [5] The Applicant submitted his application for permanent residence on H and C grounds based on his establishment in Canada, his familial ties to Canada, including his wife, mother and sisters, as well as the best interests of his children. [6] Due to his criminal record, the Applicant can only obtain status in Canada, at this time, through an application on H and C grounds. [7] The Applicant is eligible to seek, and has now applied for, a suspension of his criminal record. [8] The Applicant’s adult stepdaughter
and 19-year-old son are not “children” for the purposes of the Act, in the absence of evidence of dependency. [9] The Applicant submits the decision was unreasonable because the Officer failed to consider all of the evidence, including his establishment in Canada and letters of support from family and friends. [10] The Applicant also argues the Officer unreasonably assessed the best interests of his children. [11] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the “Respondent”) submits the Officer’s decision was reasonable and made with regard to all of the evidence. [12] In its recent decision in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, the Supreme Court of Canada revisited the standard of review of administrative decisions. It said that, presumptively, such decisions are reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, with two exceptions: where legislative intent or the rule of law requires otherwise. Neither exception applies in this case. [13] In Vavilov, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed the content of the reasonableness standard as set out in Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190. [14] According to the decision in Dunsmuir, supra, the standard of reasonableness requires that a decision be justifiable, transparent and intelligible, falling within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible on the law and the
facts. [15] In my opinion, the decision is not reasonable because the reasons do not show that the Officer considered the totality of the evidence, including evidence of family relationships and the marital relationship. [16] It is not necessary for me to address the arguments about an unreasonable assessment of the best interests of the Applicant’s 16-year-old daughter. [17] In the result, the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter is remitted to another officer for redetermination. [18] There is no question for certification arising. JUDGMENT in IMM-2781-19 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter is remitted to another officer for redetermination. There is no question for certification arising. "E. Heneghan" Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2781-19 STYLE OF CAUSE: MARTIN EVANS REID v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONtario DATE OF HEARING: February 4 , 2020 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: HENEGHAN J. DATED: February 14, 2020 APPEARANCES: Trudi-Ann Newby For The Applicant Meva Motwani For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Kazembe & Associates Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.