Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 19980813


Docket: IMM-4235-97

BETWEEN:

     EDGAR MERVYN SEBASTIAN DIAS

     ANNE SONALY PRIYADARSHANEE DIAS

     MARYANNE LUDMITA DIAS

     THERESE SAUMYA DIAS

     CARMEL DISNI DIAS

     DOMINIQUE MARIO NIRMAI DIAS

Applicants

     - and -

     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER

ROTHSTEIN, J.:

[1]      The IRB panel found that the principal applicant's story was not plausible. The applicants challenge the implausibility findings on the basis that the panel based its decision on evidence not on the record or by ignoring evidence in the record.

[2]      The principal applicant provided the Sri Lankan police and army with camouflage T-shirts. Production was controlled so that such T-shirts could not fall into the hands of the Tigers. He was approached for an order for T-shirts by an individual he initially thought represented the army. After checking, he concluded that this individual was not acting on behalf of the army. He believed that the individual represented the Tigers or another terrorist group and he refused to supply T-shirts to him.

[3]      The principal applicant said that he feared persecution by the army or police because they would suspect he had negotiated with the enemy to provide T-shirts for them. He also feared the individual and the Tigers or the terrorist group he represented because he refused to provide them with T-shirts. The panel found that the principal applicant's evidence was implausible for the following reasons:

     1.      It was highly unlikely that the Tigers or terrorists would go to a Sinhalese's official supplier to the army and police.
     2.      It was implausible that the Tigers would try to abduct the principal applicant because that would not produce the T-shirts they wanted.
     3.      As T-shirts were not a "high-tech product", a sample T-shirt could be easily obtained and reproduced by others.
     4.      It was not plausible the principal applicant, a well connected Sinhalese businessman, would be considered a collaborator with the Tigers if he had gone to the authorities to apprise them of the request that had been of him.
     5.      There was no persuasive evidence of Sinhalese experiencing problems for suspected Tiger support.

[4]      The principal applicant says that the panel's finding that T-shirts were not a "high-tech product" is not based on evidence before it. I would have thought that judicial notice could be taken of the fact that T-shirts are not a high-tech product. In any event, the point is insignificant. There was evidence of other manufacturers of T-shirts in Sri Lanka.

[5]      The principal applicant says there was evidence of Sinhalese experiencing problems for supporting the Tigers. There is one specific reference in the documentary material indicating that a number of Sinhalese had been arrested for allegedly providing arms supplies to the L.T.T.E. No details of whether the allegations were well founded is provided.

[6]      It is obvious that the panel's reference to no evidence of Sinhalese experiencing problems for suspected Tiger support refers to innocent Sinhalese and not to those who actually were supporting the Tigers. The reference in the documentary material does not indicate that the Sinhalese suspected of providing arms to the L.T.T.E. were or were not innocent.

[7]      The panel's decision is logical and coherent. Its implausibility findings are based on the evidence before it and are not unreasonable.

[8]      The judicial review is dismissed.

"Marshall Rothstein"

Judge

Toronto, Ontario

August 13, 1998

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-4235-97

STYLE OF CAUSE:                      EDGAR MERVYN SEBASTIAN DIAS
                             ANNE SONALY PRIYADARSHANEE DIAS
                             MARYANNE LUDMITA DIAS
                             THERESE SAUMYA DIAS
                             CARMEL DISNI DIAS
                             DOMINIQUE MARIO NIRMAI DIAS

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                            

DATE OF HEARING:                  TUESDAY, AUGUST 11, 1998

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:              ROTHSTEIN, J.

DATED:                          THURSDAY, AUGUST 13, 1998

APPEARANCES:                     

                             Mr. Larry C. Konrad

                                 For the Applicants

                             Mr. Kevin Lunney

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              Larry C. Konrad

                             Barrister & Solicitor
                             200-2 County Court Blvd.
                             Brampton, Ontario
                             L6W 3W8

                            

                                 For the Applicants

                              Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General

                             of Canada

                                 For the Respondent

                            

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 19980813

                        

         Docket: IMM-4235-97

                             Between:

                             EDGAR MERVYN SEBASTIAN DIAS
                             ANNE SONALY PRIYADARSHANEE DIAS
                             MARYANNE LUDMITA DIAS
                             THERESE SAUMYA DIAS
                             CARMEL DISNI DIAS
                             DOMINIQUE MARIO NIRMAI DIAS

     Applicants

                             - 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.