Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19990723


Docket: IMM-4674-98

BETWEEN:

     HARJIT SINGH GREWAL


Applicant


- and -


THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

REED J.: (revised version of reasons given orally)

[1]      It is clear that membership in an organization such as the Punjab Police force is not sufficient to find that there exist serious reasons for considering that the individual has committed crimes against humanity. That organization, as counsel states, has a wider and quite legitimate purpose - the maintaining of law and order.
[2]      At the same time the evidence shows that some members of that organization did commit such crimes. Thus, the question becomes whether this applicant had a close enough connection to those crimes to support a finding that he was complicit therein. I note that direct participation in the crimes is not required - complicity in them (actions that support or facilitate their commission) is sufficient.
[3]      In this regard, the decision in Randhawa v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 93 F.T.R. 151, Cardenas v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 244, and Sivakumar v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 433, do not contradict Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 2 F.C. 306. They expand on or elaborate on that decision, explaining the law I have set out above. The Board then did not err in referring only to the Ramirez case.
[4]      The question becomes whether the applicant"s activities with the Punjab Police, while not constituting direct participation in the acts of torture and human rights abuses were such as to support a finding of complicity in such acts.
[5]      It is only necessary to refer to three portions of the evidence. At page 127 of the transcript the following is found:
             Q. Now, during these two years [1985-1987], how often or how many times did you observe someone being tortured?             
             A. Many times I saw that.             

At page 148:

             Q... You have never arrested a single person [Sikh militants and suspected Sikh militants] in any of the raids that you have participated [in] over the years you have been with the police?             
             A - Just my assistants, they have many times had instances where they got some people and arrested them.             

         ...

             Q... how would you treat the families of the people who were not there, the family members? How would you treat them.             
             A. This portion of the treatment of the member of that particular person"s members of the family, was up to the in-charge. They were the ones who were torturing them...             

At page 168:

             Q. Now, you also say in your Personal Information Form ... once you were promoted to Head Constable you did not wish to participate in any tortures ... You politely told SHO Prakash that it was not in your job description to do such things. And you told him that he ought to use junior constables for this job as your health would not withstand the the rigor [sic].             
             ....             
             A. At the time he was asking me to torture or asking me to join with him in torture ... in 1995 ...             
[6]      The Board"s decision that there are "serious reasons for considering that the claimant was complicit in crimes against humanity committed by the Punjab police force" is well founded by the evidence. I can not find that the decision was unreasonable, or in the words of paragraph 18.1(4)(d) was based on an "erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it."

                                     "B. Reed"

     JUDGE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

July 23, 1999

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-4674-98
STYLE OF CAUSE:                      HARJIT SINGH GREWAL

                                        

                             - and -
                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

DATE OF HEARING:                  THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1999

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:              REED J.

DATED:                          FRIDAY, JULY 23, 1999

APPEARANCES:                      Ms. Preevanda K. Sapru

                                 For the Applicant

                             Mr. Martin E. Anderson

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              Max Berger & Associates

                             Barristers & Solicitors
                             1033 Bay Street

                             Suite 207

                             Toronto, Ontario
                             M5S 3A5

        

                                 For the Applicant

                             Morris Rosenberg
                             Deputy Attorney General of Canada

        

                                 For the Respondent

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 19990723

                        

         Docket: IMM-4674-98

                             Between:

                            

                             HARJIT SINGH GREWAL

     Applicant

                                        

                             - and -
                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

                    

                            

            

                                                                             REASONS FOR ORDER

                            

 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.