Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20020416

Docket: IMM-2891-01

Montréal, Quebec, April 16, 2002

Before: Tremblay-Lamer J.

BETWEEN:

JOSÉ MANUEL ORTIZ ZAVALA,

SILVIA ANDRADE ORTIZ,

BRUNO ORTIZ ANDRADE

Plaintiffs

and

THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION

AND CITIZENSHIP

Defendant

Judicial review from a decision by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, rendered by Sylvie Lévesque and Charles DeBlois on May 25, 2001, in cases MA0-08493, MA1-00702 and MA1-00703.

[Section 82.1 of Immigration Act]

ORDER

The application for judicial review is dismissed.

"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"

line

                                   Judge

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.


Date: 20020416

Docket: IMM-2891-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 435

Between:

JOSÉ MANUEL ORTIZ ZAVALA,

SILVIA ANDRADE ORTIZ,

BRUNO ORTIZ ANDRADE

Plaintiffs

and

THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION

AND CITIZENSHIP

Defendant

REASONS FOR ORDER

TREMBLAY-LAMER J.

[1]        It is sufficient to note that in Canada (Attorney General) v. Ward, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 689, at 739, the Supreme Court of Canada set out three categories of social group:

(1)           groups defined by an innate or unchangeable characteristic;

(2)           groups whose members voluntarily associate for reasons so fundamental to their human dignity that they should not be forced to forsake the association; and

(3)           groups associated by a former voluntary status, unalterable due to its historical permanence.


[2]        Travelling merchants do not fall in any of these groups.

[3]        In the case at bar, the plaintiffs feared criminal acts committed by private parties who had nothing to do with the government. Although such acts are regrettable, I feel that the tribunal made no error when it found that the fear was not connected to any of the grounds listed in the definition of a "Convention refugee".

[4]        For these reasons, the application for judicial review is dismissed.

"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"

line

                                   Judge

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

April 16, 2002

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.


             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                             TRIAL DIVISION

                                                               Date: 20020416

                                                  Docket: IMM-2891-01

Between:

JOSÉ MANUEL ORTIZ ZAVALA,

SILVIA ANDRADE ORTIZ,

BRUNO ORTIZ ANDRADE

Plaintiffs

and

THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION

AND CITIZENSHIP

Defendant

line

                      REASONS FOR ORDER

line


                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                                 TRIAL DIVISION

                                                          SOLICITORS OF RECORD

FILE:                                                                               IMM-2891-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                     JOSÉ MANUEL ORTIZ ZAVALA,

SILVIA ANDRADE ORTIZ,

BRUNO ORTIZ ANDRADE

Plaintiffs

and

THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

Defendant

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                Montréal, Quebec

DATE OF HEARING:                                                  April 16, 2002

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                                    TREMBLAY-LAMER J.

DATED:                                                                           April 16, 2002

APPEARANCES:

Lenya Kalepdjian                                                              FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

Édith Savard                                                                       FOR THE DEFENDANT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Lenya Kalepdjian                                                              FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

Montréal, Quebec

Morris Rosenberg                                                              FOR THE DEFENDANT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Montréal, Quebec

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.