Badurdeen v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-1312-98
Evans J.
17/3/99
11 pp.
Judicial review of Refugee Division's denial of Convention refugee status-Applicant, Tamil from Sri Lanka, claiming refugee status on ground persecuted by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers), and by Sri Lankan army-Refugee Division not believing applicant's evidence as to persecution by army, finding applicant having internal flight alternative in Colombo-Reasons for decision silent on whether applicant having well-founded fear of persecution by Tamil Tigers in Eastern region or Colombo-Applicant submitting Immigration Act not permitting Refugee Division to render reasons, decision orally, and then subsequently communicate them in writing-S. 69.1(9) providing Refugee Division shall render decision as soon as possible after completion of hearing, and send written notice of decision to person and to Minister-S. 69.1(11)(a) providing if decision against person making claim, Refugee Division shall, with written notice of decision, give written reasons with decision-Given importance, as evidenced by s. 69.1(9), of Refugee Division rendering decisions without undue delay, extraordinary to interpret s. 69.1(11)(a) as, in effect, preventing panel hearing claim from rendering negative oral decision promptly after claimant heard-If no regard had to statutory context, purpose, English text of s. 69.1(11)(a) could be interpreted as requiring Refugee Division to give written reasons for negative decision at time renders decision, thus precluding oral negative decisions-But unnecessary to reach this result, especially since s. 69.1(11)(a) result of amendment designed to deal with this very problem under previous wording of statute-Requirement Refugee Division shall, with written notice of decision, give written reasons with decision satisfied if written reasons sent with notice of decision include decision itself: Isiaku v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 150 F.T.R. 143 (F.C.T.D.)-French text, providing "la transmission des motifs se fait avec sa notification", clarifying any lingering ambiguity-Making it clear reasons must be sent with notice of decision, and not precluding possibility decision may already have been rendered orally-Refugee Division's reasons not addressing evidence since 1996 police not permitting non-resident Tamils to remain in Colombo more than few days-If accepted, such evidence would render Colombo destination not realistically accessible to applicant, and would negate finding social services would be available to applicant-Absent reference in reasons to significant evidence about police practice, possible only to speculate on how Refugee Division treated it, or if had regard to it at all-Failure to address this evidence in reasons rendering decision erroneous in law-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 69.1 (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 18; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 60).