Esensoy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration)
Between
Ali Vahit Esensoy, Applicant, and
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Respondent
[2012] F.C.J. No.
1673
2012 FC 1343
Docket IMM-9674-11
Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario
Zinn J.
Heard: July 12, 2012.
Judgment: November 21, 2012.
Docket IMM-9674-11
Federal Court
Toronto, Ontario
Zinn J.
Heard: July 12, 2012.
Judgment: November 21, 2012.
(22 paras.)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
1 ZINN J.:-- This is an application for
judicial review of a decision made by Citizenship and Immigration Canada
returning the applicant's application to sponsor his mother because
"effective November 5, 2011, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) has
temporarily stopped accepting new applications for the sponsorship of parents
and grandparents."
2 Mr.
Esensoy submits that his application faxed to CIC on November 4, 2011, fell
within the period when applications were being accepted and further submits
that the Minister acted outside his statutory authority in suspending
sponsorship of parents, thereby breaching subsection 87.3(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC
2001, c 27, and "frustrating the applicant's rights" under section 13
of the Act. Sections 13 and 87.3, as they read on November 4, 2011, are
reproduced and attached as an Appendix to these Reasons.
3 Mr.
Esensoy is a permanent resident of Canada and citizen of Turkey. He and his
family discussed sponsoring his 63-year old mother to come to Canada after the
death of his father. On Friday November 4, 2011, the applicant learned of a
Ministerial Instruction placing a moratorium on sponsorship applications. It
was announced that "[e]ffective November 5, 2011, no new family class sponsorship
applications for a sponsor's parents (R117(1)(c)) or grandparents (R117(1)(d))
will be accepted for processing." A complete copy of the Ministerial
Instruction is attached as an Appendix to these Reasons.
4 On
November 4, 2011, at 3:55 p.m., the applicant paid the online fee; at 9:04 p.m.
he sent his application by fax; and at 9:38 p.m. he paid for overnight delivery
of his physical application. The physical copy was received after November 5,
2011.
5 The
applicant submits that his application was received at the time it was faxed.
In support, he cites Ghaloghlyan v Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1252, at para 10
[Ghaloghlyan]. I agree with the
respondent that Ghaloghlyan is
not persuasive on the issue of whether the application for sponsorship could be
sent by fax. The question asked in Ghaloghlyan was "what does it take to prove on a balance of probabilities
that a document was sent?": see para 9. The Court answered at paragraph 10
by saying that "[p]roving that a fax went on its way is verified by
producing a fax log of sent messages confirming the sending." The question
in the current matter is not whether it was sent, it is whether it could have
been sent by that method and, if so, whether it was properly received before
November 5, 2011.
6 As
to whether CIC should have accepted the fax, the Minister cites El Yahyaoui v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2012 FC 283, at para 16 [El Yahyaoui] which states:
· [I]t is up to CIC, in accordance with legislation and regulations,
to decide on the administrative procedures relating to submitting documents,
and it was not unreasonable to decide that the applications for restoration of
status could not be sent by fax. Moreover, submitting an application for
restoration by fax would not have met the requirements of section 13 of the
Regulations since a document sent by fax is not an original document.
7 The
Minister submits, and I agree, that CIC made it clear that family class
applications must be submitted by mail and physically received November 5,
2011:
· Applications received on or after November 5, 2011
· New FC4 Sponsorship applications for parents or grandparents
received by Centralized Processing Centre-Mississauga (CPC-M) on or after
November 5, 2011, will be returned to the sponsor with a letter (see Appendix
A) advising them of the temporary pause. Applications which are postmarked before November 5, 2011, but are
received at CPC-M on or after November 5, 2011 will also be returned to the
sponsor. In both cases, processing fees shall be returned. [emphasis
added]
8 I
find that the applicant's sponsorship application was required to have been
mailed and received by CIC before November 5, 2011. His application was not
received prior to the deadline set by the Minister.
9 Is
the Ministerial Instruction valid?
10 The
applicant submits that the Minister acted outside his legislated authority and
says that the wording in subsection 87.3(1) of the Act makes it clear that the
Minister was statutorily barred from making the November 5, 2011, instructions
because it expressly provides that section 87 and the Minister's authority set
out in that section apply to applications "other than" family
sponsorships in subsection 13(1) of the Act. He says that Parliament
purposefully crafted section 87.3 to ensure that the right conferred by section
13 of the Act was not violated.
11 The
Minister submits that while the applicant's reading the English language version
of subsection 87.3 could be read in the manner suggested, it cannot be so read
in the French language version.
12 Two
meanings can be read into the English text of subsection 87.3(1) of the Act;
however, the use of the word "aux" in the French language version
clearly indicates that subsection 87.3(2) of the Act applies to section 13.
Accordingly, the English-language version must be read consistently with the
French-language version. The Minister has the right to "give instructions
with respect to the processing of applications and requests, including
instructions ... setting the number of applications or requests, by category or
otherwise, to be processed in any year."
13 The
applicant says that if the Minister has the power to control the number of
applications perused, he cannot stop applications completely because section 13
of the Act confers a right to
sponsor a family member. To set the number of such applications at zero, even
temporarily, nullifies the right to sponsor granted by Parliament.
14 This
submission has already been rejected by the Court of Appeal in De Guzman v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FCA 436, in the context of regulation-making authority in the
Act. At paragraphs 42-43, the Court writes:
· Counsel argued that IRPA, subsection 13(1) creates a "substantive" right in
Canadian citizens, such as Ms de Guzman, to sponsor their children as members
of the family class, a right which is removed by paragraph 117(9)(d). The argument is that, in the absence of
explicit language, section 14 should not be interpreted as authorizing a
regulation which removes rights conferred by IRPA.
· I disagree. First, in view of the breadth of the legislative power
delegated by section 14, and the framework nature of IRPA, it cannot be argued that regulations may only be made with respect
to "non-substantive" matters. Hence, I see no reason why regulations
may not be enacted to create exceptions to policies in the Act. Second, the
right to sponsor members of the family class created by subsection 13(1) is
expressly made "subject to the regulations". Third, the notion that
paragraph 117(9)(d) deprives Ms
de Guzman of a statutory right is further weakened by the fact that IRPA does not define "family class"
and section 14(2) authorizes the making of regulations that "prescribe and
govern any matter relating to" the family class and sponsorship.
15 Here
there is no Regulation restricting the number of sponsorship applications to be
assessed; there is a Ministerial Instruction. Subsection 14(2) of the Act
allows for regulations in respect to sponsorships; however, there are no such
regulations in place. I agree with the respondent that in the absence of
regulations, the Minister has authority to issue Directions on the matter. This
was so held in Vaziri v Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration), 2006 FC 1159, at paras 35 and 37 [Vaziri]:
· The Minister is responsible for the administration of IRPA. In the
absence of enacted regulations, he has the power to set policies governing the
management of the flow of immigrants to Canada, so long as those policies and
decisions are made in good faith and are consistent with the purpose,
objectives, and scheme of IRPA. The Governor in Council retains the power to
direct how the Minister should administer IRPA through regulations, and may
oust the Minister's powers. However, where there is a vacuum of express
statutory or regulatory authority, the Minister must be permitted the flexible
authority to administer the system.
· In summary, I am satisfied that, in the absence of regulations made
under s. 14(2) of IRPA, the Minister acted lawfully in establishing the 60:40
ratio, in establishing targets for visa approvals by class and in setting
procedures for prioritizing sponsored applications within the family
class.
16 Paragraph
87.3(3)(c) of the Act indicates that the Minister can "set the number of
applications or requests... to be processed in any year." I see nothing
that dictates that the number cannot be reduced to zero, provided that "in
the opinion of the Minister, [it] will best support the attainment of the
immigration goals established by the Government of Canada." As stated in Vaziri, "where there is a vacuum of
express statutory or regulatory authority, the Minister must be permitted the
flexible authority to administer the system."
17 The
applicant argues that in setting the number at zero, the Minister is
effectively nullifying the right to sponsor, which is qualitatively different
than setting the number of applications that will be processed. That may be a
superficially appealing argument, but it is important not to lose sight of the
bigger picture: the Minister's power under paragraph 87.3(3)(c) is indeed
robust. Such was Parliament's obvious intention, for if, as the applicant
concedes, the Minister can set the number at merely one applicant, then - but
for one lucky applicant - the right to sponsor is, at least temporarily,
effectively nullified. I am simply not persuaded that Parliament intended for there
to be such a dramatic result if the Minister were to reduce that one to a zero.
The better view is that Parliament intended to grant such discretion to the
Minister. It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a provision must be
interpreted harmoniously with the scheme of the Act: Rizzo
& Rizzo Shoes Ltd, Re, [1998] 1 SCR 27, 154 DLR
(4th) 193 at para 21. It follows that a provision should be internally
harmonious in its operation as well. In my view, the interpretation of
paragraph 87.3(3)(c) urged by the applicant is highly technical and would
render the operation of that provision disjointed and unnatural, and for those
reasons cannot be adopted.
18 The
record shows that there was a 165,000 application backlog when the Ministerial
Instructions were announced. As of January 2012, the anticipated processing
time for applications for permanent residence arising out of Turkey could take
up to 81 months. This was arguably an issue that required administrative
intervention and the Minister's actions appear to have been bona fide and
directed to that backlog issue.
19 Accordingly,
the Minister had the legislative authority to place a temporary moratorium on
the filing of sponsorship applications.
20 Subsequent
to the hearing of this application, it was brought to my attention that section
87.3 of the Act had been amended prior to the hearing by adding, in part, the
following provisions to section 87.3 of the Act making it clear that the
Minister could reduce the number of applications considered to zero:
· Section 87.3 of the [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC
2001, c 27] is amended by adding the following after subsection (3):
An instruction may, if
it so provides, apply in respect of pending applications or requests that are
made before the day on which the instruction takes effect.
For greater certainty,
an instruction given under paragraph (3)(c) may provide that the number of
applications or requests, by category or otherwise, to be processed in any year
be set at zero.
21 Both
parties agreed that this amendment had no impact on this application for
judicial review and thus, the amendments were not considered by the Court in
reaching this decision.
22 There
was no question for certification proposed by the parties and the Court finds
there to be none.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that this application is dismissed and no question is certified.
ZINN J.
* * * * *
APPENDIX A
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27
(1) A Canadian citizen
or permanent resident may, subject to the regulations, sponsor a foreign
national who is a member of the family class.
A group of Canadian
citizens or permanent residents, a corporation incorporated under a law of
Canada or of a province, and an unincorporated organization or association
under federal or provincial law, or any combination of them may, subject to the
regulations, sponsor a Convention refugee or a person in similar
circumstances.
An undertaking relating
to sponsorship is binding on the person who gives it.
An officer shall apply
the regulations on sponsorship referred to in paragraph 14(2)(e) in accordance
with any instructions that the Minister may make.
· ...
· 87.3 (1) This section applies to applications for visas or other
documents made under subsection 11(1), other than those made by persons
referred to in subsection 99(2), to sponsorship applications made by persons
referred to in subsection 13(1), to applications for permanent resident status
under subsection 21(1) or temporary resident status under subsection 22(1) made
by foreign nationals in Canada, to applications for work or study permits and
to requests under subsection 25(1) made by foreign nationals outside
Canada.
The processing of
applications and requests is to be conducted in a manner that, in the opinion
of the Minister, will best support the attainment of the immigration goals
established by the Government of Canada.
For the purposes of
subsection (2), the Minister may give instructions with respect to the
processing of applications and requests, including instructions
establishing categories
of applications or requests to which the instructions apply;
establishing an order,
by category or otherwise, for the processing of applications or requests;
setting the number of
applications or requests, by category or otherwise, to be processed in any
year; and
providing for the
disposition of applications and requests, including those made subsequent to
the first application or request.
Officers and persons
authorized to exercise the powers of the Minister under section 25 shall comply
with any instructions before processing an application or request or when
processing one. If an application or request is not processed, it may be
retained, returned or otherwise disposed of in accordance with the instructions
of the Minister.
The fact that an
application or request is retained, returned or otherwise disposed of does not
constitute a decision not to issue the visa or other document, or grant the
status or exemption, in relation to which the application or request is
made.
Instructions shall be
published in the Canada Gazette.
Nothing in this section
in any way limits the power of the Minister to otherwise determine the most
efficient manner in which to administer this Act.
* * *
· Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés (L.C. 2001, ch. 27)
(1) Tout citoyen
canadien et tout résident permanent peuvent, sous réserve des règlements,
parrainer l'étranger de la catégorie "regroupement familial".
Tout groupe de citoyens
canadiens ou de résidents permanents ou toute personne morale ou association de
régime fédéral ou provincial -- ou tout groupe de telles de ces personnes -- ,
peut, sous réserve des règlements, parrainer un étranger qui a la qualité, au
titre de la présente loi, de réfugié ou de personne en situation semblable.
L'engagement de
parrainage lie le répondant.
L'agent est tenu de se
conformer aux instructions du ministre sur la mise en oeuvre des règlements
visés à l'alinéa 14(2)e).
· ...
· 87.3 (1) Le présent article s'applique aux demandes de visa et
autres documents visées au paragraphe 11(1) -- sauf à celle faite par la
personne visée au paragraphe 99(2) -- , aux demandes de parrainage faites par
une personne visée au paragraphe 13(1), aux demandes de statut de résident
permanent visées au paragraphe 21(1) ou de résident temporaire visées au
paragraphe 22(1) faites par un étranger se trouvant au Canada, aux demandes de
permis de travail ou d'études ainsi qu'aux demandes prévues au paragraphe 25(1)
faites par un étranger se trouvant hors du Canada.
Le traitement des
demandes se fait de la manière qui, selon le ministre, est la plus susceptible
d'aider l'atteinte des objectifs fixés pour l'immigration par le gouvernement
fédéral.
Pour l'application du
paragraphe (2), le ministre peut donner des instructions sur le traitement des
demandes, notamment des instructions :
prévoyant les groupes
de demandes à l'égard desquels s'appliquent les instructions;
prévoyant l'ordre de
traitement des demandes, notamment par groupe;
précisant le nombre de
demandes à traiter par an, notamment par groupe;
régissant la
disposition des demandes dont celles faites de nouveau.
L'agent -- ou la
personne habilitée à exercer les pouvoirs du ministre prévus à l'article 25 --
est tenu de se conformer aux instructions avant et pendant le traitement de la
demande; s'il ne procède pas au traitement de la demande, il peut, conformément
aux instructions du ministre, la retenir, la retourner ou en disposer.
Le fait de retenir ou
de retourner une demande ou d'en disposer ne constitue pas un refus de délivrer
les visa ou autres documents, d'octroyer le statut ou de lever tout ou partie
des critères et obligations applicables.
Les instructions sont
publiées dans la Gazette du Canada.
Le présent article n'a
pas pour effet de porter atteinte au pouvoir du ministre de déterminer de toute
autre façon la manière la plus efficace d'assurer l'application de la
loi.
* * * * *
APPENDIX B
MINISTERIAL INSTRUCTIONS
(Le texte français suit le texte anglais)
The following is a copy of the Ministerial
Instructions at issue:
(http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2011 /ob350.asp):
Operational Bulletin 350 - November 4, 2011
Fourth Set of Ministerial Instructions: Temporary
Pause on Family Class Sponsorship Applications for Parents and Grandparents
Summary
Effective November 5, 2011, a temporary pause has
been placed on new Family Class sponsorship applications for parents and
grandparents (FC4). Instructions are provided on what to do with FC4
sponsorship applications received before and after this date.
Issue
This Operational Bulletin (OB) provides guidance
on FC4 sponsorship applications and the fourth set of Ministerial Instructions
(MI-4) which come into force November 5, 2011.
Background
On June 18, 2008, the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act was amended to give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
authority to issue instructions that would ensure the processing of
applications and requests be conducted in a manner that, in the opinion of the
Minister, will best support the attainment of immigration goals set by the
Government of Canada.
The MI-4 comes into force on November 5, 2011 and
includes changes to the following programs:
* Family Class Sponsorship Applications: A
temporary pause on new sponsorship applications for parents and grandparents.
* Federal Skilled Worker Program: Introduction of
a new PhD eligibility stream (see OB 351 for more information).
The full text of these instructions can be found
at:
www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2011/2011-11-05/html/notice-avis-en
g.html#d108
Processing Instructions
Effective November 5, 2011, no new family class
sponsorship applications for a sponsor's parents (R117(1)(c)) or grandparents
(R117(1)(d)) will be accepted for processing. This temporary pause is being
implemented to allow for application backlog reduction in the FC4 category to
begin in 2012. This measure is being implemented as part of a broader strategy
to address the large backlog and wait times in the FC4 category, supporting the
attainment of immigration goals set by the Government of Canada.
The temporary pause will remain in place for up to
24 months while a more responsive, sustainable, and long-term approach for the
program is being considered.
It does not affect sponsorship applications for
spouses, partners, dependent or adopted children and other eligible relatives.
Applications received on or after November 5, 2011
New FC4 Sponsorship applications for parents or
grandparents received by Centralized Processing Centre- Mississauga (CPC-M) on
or after November 5, 2011, will be returned to the sponsor with a letter (see
Appendix A) advising them of the temporary pause. Applications which are
postmarked before November 5, 2011, but are received at CPC-M on or after
November 5, 2011 will also be returned to the sponsor. In both cases, processing
fees shall be returned.
Applications received before November 5, 2011
Complete FC4 sponsorship applications received by
CPC-M prior to close of business (5 p.m. EST) on November 4, 2011, should
continue to be processed as usual. Cases where FC4 sponsorship applications
have been submitted to CPC-M, but the applications for permanent residence have
not yet been submitted to the visa office are not affected by the temporary
pause.
Cost recovery fee payment made before November 5,
2011
In cases where an applicant has submitted their
cost recovery fee payment but CPC-M has not received the FC4 sponsorship
application before close of business (5 p.m. EST) on November 4, 2011, the
applicant will receive a refund of the processing fees.
Humanitarian and Compassionate Requests
Requests made on the basis of Humanitarian and
Compassionate grounds made from outside Canada that accompany any permanent
resident application affected by Ministerial Instructions but not identified
for processing under the Instructions will not be processed.
Updates to the IP 2 manual are forthcoming.
For further information outlined in this OB,
please contact your supervisor or your Regional Program Advisor (RPA). RPAs may
in turn contact Operational Management and Coordination Branch at OMC-GOC-Immigration@cic.gc.ca.
* * *
(The English text precedes the French text)
INSTRUCTIONS MINISTÉRIELLES
Ce qui suit est une reproduction des instructions
ministérielles en cause :
(http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/bulletins/2011
/ob350.asp):
Bulletin opérationnel 350 - le 4 novembre 2011
Quatrième série d'instructions ministérielles :
moratoire temporaire sur les demandes de parrainage de parents et de grands
parents au titre de la catégorie du regroupement familial
Sommaire
À compter du 5 novembre 2011, on imposera un
moratoire temporaire visant les nouvelles demandes de parrainage de parents et
de grands-parents au titre de la catégorie du regroupement familial (CF4). La
présente fournit des instructions concernant la procédure à suivre pour les
demandes de parrainage CF4 reçues avant et après cette date.
Objet
Ce Bulletin opérationnel (BO) fournit des
directives sur les demandes de parrainage CF4 et la quatrième série
d'instructions ministérielles (IM-4), qui entrera en vigueur le 5 novembre
2011.
Contexte
Le 18 juin 2008, des modifications ont été
apportées à la Loi sur l'immigration et la protection des réfugiés en vue
d'accorder au ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration le pouvoir de
produire des instructions qui garantiraient le traitement des demandes de façon
qui, de l'avis du ministre, favorisera le mieux l'atteinte des objectifs en
matière d'immigration fixés par le gouvernement du Canada.
L'IM-4 entrera en vigueur le 5 novembre 2011 et
comprend des modifications aux programmes suivants :
* Demandes de parrainage au titre de la catégorie
du regroupement familial : moratoire temporaire visant les nouvelles demandes
de parrainage de parents et de grands-parents;
* Programme des travailleurs qualifiés du volet
fédéral: mise en oeuvre d'un nouveau volet des travailleurs titulaires d'un
doctorat.
(Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements,
veuillez consulter le BO 351)
Vous trouverez les instructions intégrales à la
page suivante :
www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2011/2011-11-05/html/notice-avis-fr
a.html#d108
Instructions de traitement
À compter du 5 novembre 2011, aucune nouvelle
demande de parrainage de parents [R117(1)c)] ou de grands-parents [R117(1)d)]
au titre de la catégorie du regroupement familial ne sera acceptée aux fins de
traitement. La mise en oeuvre de ce moratoire temporaire vise à permettre la
réduction de l'arriéré de demandes au titre de la catégorie CF4 à compter de
2012, ce qui garantira une plus grande équité pour les demandeurs en attente
d'une décision à l'égard de leur demande et favorisera l'atteinte des objectifs
en matière d'immigration fixés par le gouvernement du Canada.
Le moratoire temporaire sera en place pour une
période de 24 mois au maximum, période pendant laquelle on fera l'examen des
options visant l'adoption d'une approche mieux adaptée et durable pour le
programme.
Il ne touche pas les demandes de parrainage
d'époux, de partenaires conjugaux, de conjoints de fait, de personnes à charge,
d'enfants adoptés ou d'autres membres de la parenté admissibles.
Demandes reçues le 5 novembre 2011 ou à une date ultérieure
Les nouvelles demandes de parrainage CF4 de
parents ou de grands-parents reçues au Centre de traitement des demandes -
Mississauga (CTD-M) le 5 novembre 2011 ou à une date ultérieure, seront
retournées aux répondants avec une lettre (voir Appendice A) les informant du
moratoire temporaire. Les demandes dont le cachet de la poste indique une date
antérieure au 5 novembre 2011, mais qui sont reçues au CTD-M le 5 novembre ou à
une date ultérieure seront également retournées aux répondants.
Demandes reçues avant le 5 novembre 2011
Les demandes de parrainage CF4 reçues au CTD-M le
4 novembre 2011 avant l'heure de fermeture des bureaux (17 h HNE) doivent être
traitées comme à l'habitude. Le moratoire temporaire ne touchera pas les
demandes de parrainage CF4 présentées au CTD-M dont la demande de résidence
permanente n'a pas encore été soumise au bureau des visas.
Paiement des frais de traitement avant le 5
novembre 2011
Dans les cas où le demandeur acquitte les frais de
traitement de sa demande, mais où le CTD-M ne reçoit pas la demande de
parrainage CF4 le 4 novembre 2011 avant l'heure de fermeture des bureaux (17 h
HNE), le demandeur sera remboursé.
Demandes pour circonstances d'ordre humanitaire
Les demandes pour circonstances d'ordre
humanitaire qui accompagnent les demandes de résidence permanente non désignées
aux fins de traitement aux termes des instructions ministérielles ne seront pas
traitées.
Les mises à jour au guide IP 2 sont à venir.
Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements au
sujet de ce BO, veuillez communiquer avec votre superviseur ou votre conseiller
de programme régional (CPR). Les CPR peuvent ensuite communiquer par courriel
avec la Direction générale de la gestion opérationnelle et de la coordination,
à l'adresse suivante : OMC-GOC-Immigration@cic.gc.ca.
