Federal Court Decisions

Date: 19971017

Docket: IMM-4882-96

BETWEEN:

     SAMINATHAN GHANDIAMMAH,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,

     Respondent.

     REASONS

     (delivered orally from the bench on October 17, 1997)

MULDOON, J.

[1]          THE COURT: The Court has listened to you very carefully and the Court can give you judgment from the Bench, because the Court has come to a conclusion and the conclusion to which the Court has come is that the CRDD's decision here was virtually flawless and, therefore, the CRDD did not go off the rails.

[2]          Now the Court does not know whether counsel want an elaboration of that or not. If it be not necessary, then the Court shall not need to elaborate it and you can consider these to be the reasons.

[3]          The Court thinks that the CRDD's decision in this matter is virtually flawless. The Court is able to adopt and ratify the submissions made by Ms. Nucci.

[4]      The great flaw here appears to be what applicant's counsel was instructed to put before the Court, that she is different from all the other recently-arrived Tamils in and around Columbo in that because she was born more than two decades before the leader of the LTT, but in the same village, that puts her at special risk. Yet we have seen in her testimony that she obtained passes coming south to Columbo. She seemed to have obtained them easily and she was not detained. She was not specially detained.

[5]          Now there just is no evidence that this woman is at any special risk in and around Columbo from all the other newly-arrived Tamils from the North. To make the bald decision that there is no IFA, internal flight alternative, in and around Columbo for Tamils from the North is to say something which is not true. It is not borne out by the jurisprudence and it is not borne out by the evidence. The Court has many times, and recently, and continues to proclaim an internal flight alternative for Tamils from the North.

[6]          The other factors here are that this is a woman of sixty-four years of age. She is not a young male Tamil. She is not a young Tamil. Let us even say that it is young Tamils who would be scrutinized specially by the security forces of Sri Lanka, so it is, but she is not young at sixty-four. I do not want to call her old, because this judge is even older, but she is not young.

[7]          And the Court thinks that she is not a member of any suicide squad and there is no evidence that she had any connection whatever with the Tigers. It is just fatuous to say, without evidence, that she is at some special risk because she was born in the same village two decades before the leader of the LTTE. There is no evidence to that effect.

[8]          The Court has asked counsel for the applicant perhaps a dozen times, "Point me to that evidence, please." And counsel was unable to point any evidence which was before the CRDD or even before this Court to the effect that the applicant is at some special risk.

[9]          If she be at no special risk, she is at the risk which is common to all people living in a country where there is a vicious civil war. The fact that the government of Sri Lanka has to take security measures, the fact that the government of Sri Lanka verifies people's identity, and frequently, and over and over again, is not unnatural in a country with a vicious civil war, but it does not a refugee make.

[10]          Security checks are common and necessary. Everyone is checked. Indeed, the applicant testified to that effect in the tribunal's record, page 319. The lodge in which she was staying, (hopefully she could find other accommodation now), but the lodge in which she was staying was investigated by the security forces thoroughly, everyone there, everybody's door was knocked upon by the security forces.

[11]          She did not say that she was at special risk and she was not at special risk. She is a mature woman. She is not even apparently a Tamil Tiger, so the use of documents, of jurisprudence from the CRDD, relating the general conditions of Tamils in Columbo, is not in any way inadmissible here or a ground for quashing the CRDD's decision.

[12]          General conditions are common conditions. The onus would be on the applicant, if she could, to prove that she was special. She did not do that. And so the CRDD's decision seems to be virtually flawless. Why not say flawless? Well, it may be that it could have spilled more ink and used more paper to describe her more particularly. It may be that it could have. Certainly, that would have been the end of the argument that it did not do that, but in the Court's view it did not need to do that, because of the abundant jurisprudence to the effect that the CRDD is not bound to parse every document, to fine-comb every document before it.

[13]          The CRDD makes a decision on the evidence before it. And if there be evidence in documents of general conditions, CRDD is entitled to rely upon them, so for that reason the Court will dismiss the application.

[14]          With respect, there is no doubt that neither side has any reason to complain about the services of its counsel in this case. If counsel want fuller reasons, if counsel want more Canadian trees chopped down, the Court could write reasons in fuller form; would consider that, but will not promise to do it.

[15]          The Court thinks that there is no special question needing certification for determination in this case. Do counsel think this case is special? Is there some question which requires some special determination? or to be certified?

[16]          MR. XAVIER: I came to assist somebody else, Your Honour. From the record, you will see I am not the counsel on record.

[17]          THE COURT: No, but you are counsel here.

[18]          MR. XAVIER: Yes.

[19]          THE COURT: This judge is not going to hear from counsel of record other than you. You are the one who is here. So, is there a question which the Court should refer to the Federal Court of Appeal in this case - some special question of general importance, and if so, what is it? And it should be in writing.

[20]          Everyone can see neither of you is tendering me a written question, so there is no written question. There is no question then to be certified. And if counsel have any other questions, Court will be pleased to try to answer them. Any other questions?

[21]          MS. NUCCI: (Nods negatively)

[22]          MR. XAVIER: No, Your Honour.

[23]          THE COURT: Court will rise.

[24]          THE USHER: Order. Please rise.

[25]          THE REGISTRAR: This matter is now concluded. Court is closed for the day.

--- Upon adjourning at 1:02 p.m.