Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content






Date: 19991125


Docket: IMM-1357-99



BETWEEN:

    


ERIC REID


Applicant


-and-

                                



THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION



Respondent



     REASONS FOR ORDER

REED J.:      (a version of the reasons rendered orally)

[1]      The Board"s decision does not contain error.

[2]      The Board noted that despite the fact that the Reids say they formed the intention to adopt Doxeine in 1984, they did nothing until 1991, when they commenced an adoption application, and then they did not pursue that application to fruition until 1996. By that time Doxeine was 16 years old, nearly an adult.

[3]      The Board noted that although the Reids said they did not move to adopt Doxeine earlier because they were waiting until they became financially secure, they had a child of their own in 1985.

[4]      Counsel argues that the Board did not give reasons for its conclusion that the relationship between Mrs. Reid and Doxeine was a sister/sister relationship rather than that of parent/child. But it did. It pointed out the age of the child when the adoption took place. It pointed out that the child had lived for all her life with her natural parents, who supported and nurtured her. It pointed out that despite stating that they had wished to adopt Doxeine for many years, there had been no action taken to do so, and Doxeine herself had not been told about the adoption plans until she was thirteen.

[5]      Counsel referred to the common experience of mankind and that Courts are in as good a position as specialized tribunals to make decisions on that basis.

[6]      In that regard, it is not unusual to see an older sibling provide support, love and care to a younger sibling in the way Ms. Reid has done in this case. This does not, however, convert the relationship into one of parent/child. Also, it is the common experience of mankind that adoptions are managed at as early an age as possible in order to promote the creation of a parent/child relationship.

[7]      I can find no error in the decision that was made. I must therefore dismiss this application for judicial review.

                                 "B. Reed"

     Judge


Toronto, Ontario

November 25, 1999





















            










FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                      IMM-1357-99
STYLE OF CAUSE:                  ERIC REID

                         - and -

                         THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                         AND IMMIGRATION

DATE OF HEARING:              THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY:          REED J.

DATED:                      THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1999

APPEARANCES:                  Mr. W. Lloyd MacIlquham
                             For the Applicant
                         Mr. Stephen Gold
                             For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          W. Lloyd MacIlquham

                         Barrister & Solicitor

                         5859 Yonge Street

                         Suite 103

                         Toronto, Ontario

                         M2M 3V6

                             For the Applicant
                         Morris Rosenberg
                         Deputy Attorney General of Canada
                             For the Respondent

                         FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA


                                 Date: 19991125

                        

         Docket: IMM-1357-99


                         Between:

                         ERIC REID


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.