Date: 19981126
Docket: IMM-126-98
BETWEEN:
RENGAM CHANDRAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
[Delivered from the Bench at Calgary, Alberta,
on Tuesday, November 17, 1998, as edited]
ROTHSTEIN J.:
[1] In this judicial review from a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division, the applicant makes a number of arguments. The first is that he was denied an adjournment. His counsel was retained only one day before the hearing commenced and no adjournment was granted. However, there had been four prior adjournments over a period of over three years.
[2] There does not appear to have been any evidence before the Appeal Division as to why the applicant did not retain counsel until the day before the hearing. His prior adjournments some three months earlier were to enable him to retain counsel. I understand that counsel was placed in a difficult position being retained only one day before the hearing. However, the hearing was scheduled peremptorily. The adjournment request was on behalf of the applicant and not counsel. The applicant not explaining why he did not retain counsel earlier, I can see no reason why the Appeal Division erred in refusing to grant a further adjournment.
[3] The other arguments made by the applicant all relate to the exercise of discretion by the Appeal Division. The applicant says that the Appeal Division should have considered that he was only seeking a stay of execution of his removal order and not that the appeal be allowed. However, the reasons of the Appeal Division indicate it was well aware of the request of the applicant. In its conclusion, it determined that he had not satisfied the onus on him to establish that he should not be removed from Canada. That conclusion applies whether the applicant was asking that his appeal be allowed or that his removal be stayed. There is no reason why the Appeal Division had to be any more explicit in coming to its conclusion.
[4] Counsel for the applicant then challenges the way in which the Appeal Division dealt with the various factors that it considered. It dealt with factors that were negative to the applicant and factors that were positive. It concluded that the negative factors outweighed the positive factors. Counsel says that the Appeal Division only counted the negative factors rather than actually weighing them. However, the Appeal Division's decision indicates that it weighed the factors. I do not find merit in this submission.
[5] The applicant then says that the Appeal Division made erroneous findings of fact in regarding the applicant's conduct after he was released from jail as a criminal. The conduct involved obtaining automobiles from automobile leasing companies but not paying for them. He was not charged with a criminal offence for this conduct. The Appeal Division characterized these activities as defrauding the companies. I see nothing in its decision that suggests that it was making a finding of criminality relative to the applicant. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Appeal Division found that the applicant used different names and different spelling of his name in order to deceive, that he manufactured documents to inflate his assets and that he provided false documents in order to obtain the automobiles. Clearly, the Appeal Division was on solid ground when it found that he was defrauding these companies which led the Appeal Division to conclude that he would continue to defraud if he stayed in Canada.
[6] Applicant's counsel says that the Appeal Division erred when it concluded that the applicant's evidence was not so remarkable as to be indicative of mental illness. The Appeal Division had before it conflicting evidence as to his mental state. It had evidence that supported the finding that it made. I can see no error in this respect.
[7] Finally, the applicant was transfused with blood that was tainted with Creutzfield-Jakob disease. Applicant's counsel submits this was sufficiently significant that it should have outweighed the other factors and caused the Appeal Division to find that the applicant be entitled to stay in Canada. The Appeal Division dealt with this matter in its reasons and I cannot put it more succinctly:
| Appellant's counsel insisted that the fact that the appellant may have been contaminated with CJD as a result of receiving these blood products in Canada meant that he may suffer long-term impact and that Canada owes it to the appellant to see that this is dealt with. The Appeal Division does not agree with that position. There is no evidence that the appellant has CJD now. There is a low risk that he will ever have it. If he does contract it following removal from Canada, he is not foreclosed from seeking whatever remedies he has in Canada. This is a positive factor weighing in favour of the appellant but does not outweigh the other factors. |
[8] I can see no error with respect to the Appeal Division's treatment of the applicant's blood transfusion.
[9] The applicant has not demonstrated any error of law or jurisdiction or breach of natural justice that would justify the Court interfering with the decision of the Appeal Division.
[10] The judicial review must be dismissed.
Marshall Rothstein
J U D G E
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
NOVEMBER 26, 1998