Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content



     Date: 19990902

     Docket: IMM-5931-98

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1999

Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NADON

Between:

     Vladimir BELINSKI

     Angelina BELINSKI

     Vladimir BELINSKI

     Denis BELINSKI

     Yulia BELINSKI

     Svetlana BELINSKI

     Applicants

     AND

     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent




     ORDER


     The application for judicial review is dismissed.




     Marc Nadon

    

     Judge

Certified true translation


M. Iveson, LL.B-LL.L.






     Date: 19990902

     Docket: IMM-5931-98


BETWEEN:

     Vladimir BELINSKI

     Angelina BELINSKI

     Vladimir BELINSKI

     Denis BELINSKI

     Yulia BELINSKI

     Svetlana BELINSKI

     Applicants

     AND

     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent


     REASONS FOR ORDER


NADON J.

    

[1]      The Refugee Division determined that the applicants, citizens of Israel, were not Convention refugees. The decision under review is dated October 8, 1998.

[2]      The Refugee Division determined, inter alia, that the applicants did not establish with clear and convincing proof that the State of Israel could not protect them. In Kadenko et al. v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1996), 206 N.R. 272, Mr. Justice Décary, writing for the Federal Court of Appeal, stated the following:

When the state in question is a democratic state, as in the case at bar, the claimant must do more than simply show that he or she went to see some members of the police force and that his or her efforts were unsuccessful. The burden of proof that rests on the claimant is, in a way, directly proportional to the level of democracy in the state in question: the more democratic the state"s institutions, the more the claimant must have done to exhaust all the courses of action open to him or her.

[3]      In the instant case, the applicants were unfortunately unable to meet the burden of proof that rested on them. Accordingly, the Refugee Division did not err in finding as it did. In light of my conclusion on this point, it will not be necessary to consider the other issues raised in the application for judicial review.

[4]      For these reasons, the application will be dismissed.


     Marc Nadon

     Judge

OTTAWA, Ontario

September 2, 1999



Certified true translation


M. Iveson, LL.B-LL.L

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     TRIAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD



COURT NO.:      IMM-5931-98

STYLE OF CAUSE:      VLADIMIR BELINSKI et al. v. MCI



PLACE OF HEARING:      MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

DATE OF HEARING:      AUGUST 31, 1999

REASONS FOR ORDER OF NADON J.

DATED      SEPT. 2, 1999




APPEARANCES:

MICHELLE LANGELIER

         FOR THE APPLICANTS


SHERRY RAFAI FAR

         FOR THE RESPONDENT



SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

MICHELLE LANGELIER

         FOR THE APPLICANTS


SHERRY RAFAI FAR

Morris Rosenberg          FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 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.