Date: 19971218
Docket: IMM-4844-96
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER 1997
Present: THE HONOURABLE MADAME JUSTICE TREMBLAY-LAMER
Between:
ANATOLIY KREKNIN,
NINA KREKNINA,
STEPAN KREKNIN,
MARIYA KREKNINA,
Applicants,
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
ORDER
The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is referred back to the same panel for redetermination in accordance with these reasons.
| Danièle Tremblay-Lamer |
| JUDGE |
Certified true translation
Stephen Balogh
Date: 19971218
Docket: IMM-4844-96
Between:
ANATOLIY KREKNIN,
NINA KREKNINA,
STEPAN KREKNIN,
MARIYA KREKNINA,
Applicants,
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
TREMBLAY-LAMER J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision in which the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board determined that the applicants are not Convention refugees.
FACTS
[2] The applicants are citizens of Kazakstan. They are of Russian nationality. They allege that since Kazakstan became an independent republic, they have been persecuted by Kazak nationalists because of their nationality.
[3] At work, the principal applicant had to put up with disagreeable comments about his nationality from co-workers, and his superiors did nothing. His wife was dismissed from her position as director of a department at the Alma-Ata Institute of Economics because she is not Kazak. She submits that she was unable to find other employment because she is of Russian origin. The applicants" family was insulted hatefully by a neighbour in a public park. Their son was attacked and beaten by Kazak teenagers. He suffered a concussion.
[4] The principal applicant and his wife were themselves assaulted by four young Kazaks within sight of an indulgent Kazak police officer. Two of their assailants were arrested by the police and released the next day for lack of evidence. The applicant complained to the police, mentioning that a number of people had witnessed the assault. The police apparently conducted a criminal investigation, but nothing resulted from it. The police told the applicants that their assailants could not be found and that the judicial proceedings had been stayed.
[5] The family were harassed by their assailants on more than one hundred occasions by means of telephone calls and knocks on their door. They reported these incidents to the police.
[6] While it is within the panel"s jurisdiction to assess the various pieces of evidence and grant them the weight it deems appropriate, the panel has an obligation to consider all the evidence in the record in order to reach a finding of fact as to the applicant"s fear of persecution. In the case at bar, the panel quite simply limited itself to giving an overview of the documentary evidence filed by the refugee hearing officer on the situation of the Russian minority in Kazakstan in order to dismiss the applicants" testimonial and documentary evidence.
[7] The analysis conducted by the panel in the case at bar was insufficient to warrant upholding its decision. Gibson J. stated the following in Bougai v. Canada (M.C.I.):1
| While it is a primary function of the CRDD to weigh the evidence before it, I am not satisfied that on the analysis reflected in the reasons in this matter, that weighing was done by this panel in a manner that demonstrates the panel had regard for the totality of the material before it. On this ground alone, I conclude that this application for judicial review must be allowed and that this matter should be referred back for rehearing and redetermination. That is not to say that the conclusion reached by the CRDD in this matter might not have been reasonably open to it. It is to say that the reasons of the CRDD simply do not adequately support the conclusion that it reached. |
[8] For these reasons, I allow the application for judicial review, and the matter is referred back to the same panel for redetermination in accordance with these reasons.
[9] Neither counsel asked that a question be certified in this case.
| Danièle Tremblay-Lamer |
| JUDGE |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
December 18, 1997
Certified true translation
Stephen Balogh
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-4844-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: Anatoliy Kreknin et al. v. M.C.I.
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: December 16, 1997
REASONS FOR ORDER BY TREMBLAY-LAMER J.
DATED: December 18, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Michelle Langelier FOR THE APPLICANT
Jocelyne Murphy FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Michelle Langelier FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
George Thomson FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
__________________