Date:20010123
Docket: A-512-99
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
NOËL J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
PARVIZ ESLAMI
Appellant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Monday, January 22, 2001
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
on Monday, January 22, 2001
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A. |
Date: 20010123
Docket: A-512-99
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
NOËL J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
PARVIZ ESLAMI
Appellant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Monday, January 22, 2001)
EVANS J.A.
| _. Parviz Eslami, a citizen of Iran, made a refugee claim in Canada, which was rejected by the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board in a decision dated April 17, 1998. In reasons given orally, shortly after the end of the hearing, and subsequently reduced to writing, the Board found that the claimant was not credible, based partly on the misrepresentations that he had made when he entered Germany prior to coming to Canada, and on the misrepresentations that he had made to Canadian immigration authorities and to his counsel. In addition, the Board found implausible his evidence respecting the making of a refugee claim in Germany, since he had testified that he had wanted to make a refugee claim in Canada, and not to remain in Germany. |
| _. Having conceded that the question certified for appeal by the Motions Judge was now devoid of merit, counsel for Mr. Eslami submitted that the Motions Judge's reasons indicated that he had made other reviewable errors when dismissing the application for judicial review of the Board's decision. |
| _. First, he argued that the Board had erred in law when it based its decision, in part, on a finding that the appellant had misled the same lawyer who had assisted him in completing two Personal Information Forms, the first of which contained misrepresentations. He argued that this was a breach of the confidentiality afforded by the law to solicitor-client communications. |
| _. It is not necessary for us to decide whether it was an error of law for the Board to have taken into account its conclusion that the appellant had misled his lawyer about the truth of statements in the PIF. Since the Board had found that the appellant had misled officials in Germany and in Canada, the fact that it also found that he had misled his lawyer did not add materially to its conclusion that Mr. Eslami was not credible. |
| _. Second, counsel submitted that the Board had committed a breach of the duty of fairness when it prevented Mr. Eslami or his counsel from pursuing a line of questioning at the hearing about the content of the communications between Mr. Eslami and his lawyer. The Motions Judge made no finding on this issue and an examination of the transcript of the hearing before the Board does not reveal that it has any merit. |
| _. Third, counsel argued that it can be inferred from the fact that the Board took no more than approximately 10 or 15 minutes (in the opinion of counsel who had appeared on behalf of Mr. Eslami at the hearing before the Board) that the Board could not have considered all of the evidence and submissions made to it in support of the claim. |
| _. There is not, nor, as a matter of common sense, could there be, a rule of general application prescribing a minimum amount of time for which a tribunal must deliberate before rendering a decision. Cases are simply too various in their complexity. |
| _. The Motions Judge found that the Board gave adequate reasons for its decision and had fairly surveyed the principal evidence relating to the issue of credibility, and that its finding could not be characterised as unreasonable. Having found the claimant not be credible, the Board was not required to deliberate or expound at length on the details of his claim. We agree with the Judge's conclusion: on the facts of this case, it could not be said that the Board failed properly to have considered the appellant's claim by virtue of the time that it took to render its decision. |
| _. Fourth, contrary to counsel's contention, there was sufficient evidence before the Board regarding the appellant's admission to Germany from which it could infer that he had misled or attempted to mislead officials there. The critical finding on the issue related to the implausibility of the story, and hence of the credibility of the appellant: it was not clear to the Board why, in view of his stated desire to claim refugee status in Canada, he had sought refugee status in Germany at all or what he had done during the 10 months that he had lived there. |
| _. For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed. |
| _. Counsel for the respondent Minister asked for costs, to be fixed at $500. We are of the opinion that such an award is appropriate in the unusual circumstances of this case. In so concluding, we have taken into account the fact that the certified question on which the right of appeal was based has, by general agreement, since been answered by this Court in Isiaku v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1452 (F.C.A.). The issues put before us today were not certified and at least one had been the subject of a proposed question which the Motions Judge declined to certify. |
"John M. Evans"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-512-99
| STYLE OF CAUSE: PARVIZ ESLAMI |
Appellant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY, JANUARY 22, 2001
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: EVANS J.A. |
Delivered at Toronto, Ontario on Monday, January 22, 2001
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Michael Crane
For the Appellant
Ms. Ann Margaret Oberst
For the Respondent
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Michael Crane |
| Barrister & Solicitor |
166 Pearl Street
| Suite 200 |
| Toronto, Ontario |
M5H 1L3
| For the Appellant |
Morris Rosenberg
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20010123
Docket: A-512-99
BETWEEN:
| PARVIZ ESLAMI |
Appellant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT |