Record numbers claiming refugee status, but also extremely high percentage of the claims are abandoned. What is going on? Why are hearings not proceeding? Do they just simply vanish? Why is the Federal government not doing more to stop this strange trend? Very good article below, but no answers. This is different from teh Czech trend, where Roma claimants usually went to the hearings, even though most claims were refused.
Roma refugees: Record number of Hungarian asylum-seekers landing on Canada's doorstep News National Post
Saturday, November 5, 2011
Friday, November 4, 2011
GOVERNMENT ISSUES MORATORIUM ON PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS IMMIGRATION
News Release – Government of Canada to cut backlog and wait times for family reunification – Phase I of Action Plan for Faster Family Reunification
News Release – Government of Canada to cut backlog and wait times for family reunification – Phase I of Action Plan for Faster Family Reunification
Ottawa, November 4, 2011 — The Government of Canada is taking immediate action to cut the backlog and wait times for sponsored parents and grandparents, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney announced today.
Currently, more than 165,000 parents and grandparents who have applied to become permanent residents of Canada are still waiting for a final decision. Each year, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) receives applications for sponsorship of nearly 38,000 parents and grandparents, a number that will only continue to expand if no action is taken.
“Wait times for Family Class sponsorship applications for parents and grandparents now exceed seven years, and without taking action, those times will continue to grow, and that is unacceptable,” said Minister Kenney. “Action must be taken to cut the backlog, reduce the wait times, and ensure that the parents and grandparents program is sustainable over the long run.”
To deal with the large backlog and lengthy wait times, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is announcing Phase I of the Action Plan for Faster Family Reunification.
First – The Government of Canada will increase by over 60 percent the number of sponsored parents and grandparents Canada will admit next year, from nearly 15,500 in 2010 to 25,000 in 2012 – the highest level in nearly two decades.
Second – The government is introducing the new “Parent and Grandparent Super Visa,” which will be valid for up to 10 years. The multiple-entry visa will allow an applicant to remain in Canada for up to 24 months at a time without the need for renewal of their status. The Parent and Grandparent Super Visa will come into effect on December 1, 2011, and CIC will be able to issue the visas, on average, within eight weeks of the application. This means that instead of waiting for eight years, a parent or a grandparent can come to Canada within eight weeks. Parent and Grandparent Super Visa applicants will be required to obtain private Canadian health-care insurance for their stay in Canada.
Third – The government will consult Canadians on how to redesign the parents and grandparents program to ensure that it is sustainable in the future. The redesigned program must avoid future large backlogs and be sensitive to fiscal constraints.
Fourth – To prevent the build-up of an unmanageable number of new applications during these consultations and to further reduce the 165,000-strong backlog of parent and grandparent applicants, CIC is putting in place a temporary pause of up to 24 months on the acceptance of new sponsorship applications for parents and grandparents. The pause comes into effect on November 5, 2011.
“The Government of Canada is fully committed to helping families reunite,” said Minister Kenney. “We recognize that what parents and grandparents want most is to be able to spend time with their families.”
“If we do not take real action now, the large and growing backlog in the parents and grandparents program will lead to completely unmanageable wait times. Through this balanced series of measures, we will be able to dramatically reduce the backlog and wait times, while the new Parent and Grandparent Super Visa will allow more family members to pay extended visits to their loved ones,” added the Minister. “We anticipate that in about two years, following our consultations, Phase II of our Action Plan for Faster Family Reunification will come into effect, ensuring that future applicants are processed quickly and that the program can operate on an efficient and sustainable basis.”
For additional information on Phase I of CIC’s Action Plan for Faster Family Reunification, see the attached backgrounder.
News Release – Government of Canada to cut backlog and wait times for family reunification – Phase I of Action Plan for Faster Family Reunification
Ottawa, November 4, 2011 — The Government of Canada is taking immediate action to cut the backlog and wait times for sponsored parents and grandparents, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney announced today.
Currently, more than 165,000 parents and grandparents who have applied to become permanent residents of Canada are still waiting for a final decision. Each year, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) receives applications for sponsorship of nearly 38,000 parents and grandparents, a number that will only continue to expand if no action is taken.
“Wait times for Family Class sponsorship applications for parents and grandparents now exceed seven years, and without taking action, those times will continue to grow, and that is unacceptable,” said Minister Kenney. “Action must be taken to cut the backlog, reduce the wait times, and ensure that the parents and grandparents program is sustainable over the long run.”
To deal with the large backlog and lengthy wait times, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is announcing Phase I of the Action Plan for Faster Family Reunification.
First – The Government of Canada will increase by over 60 percent the number of sponsored parents and grandparents Canada will admit next year, from nearly 15,500 in 2010 to 25,000 in 2012 – the highest level in nearly two decades.
Second – The government is introducing the new “Parent and Grandparent Super Visa,” which will be valid for up to 10 years. The multiple-entry visa will allow an applicant to remain in Canada for up to 24 months at a time without the need for renewal of their status. The Parent and Grandparent Super Visa will come into effect on December 1, 2011, and CIC will be able to issue the visas, on average, within eight weeks of the application. This means that instead of waiting for eight years, a parent or a grandparent can come to Canada within eight weeks. Parent and Grandparent Super Visa applicants will be required to obtain private Canadian health-care insurance for their stay in Canada.
Third – The government will consult Canadians on how to redesign the parents and grandparents program to ensure that it is sustainable in the future. The redesigned program must avoid future large backlogs and be sensitive to fiscal constraints.
Fourth – To prevent the build-up of an unmanageable number of new applications during these consultations and to further reduce the 165,000-strong backlog of parent and grandparent applicants, CIC is putting in place a temporary pause of up to 24 months on the acceptance of new sponsorship applications for parents and grandparents. The pause comes into effect on November 5, 2011.
“The Government of Canada is fully committed to helping families reunite,” said Minister Kenney. “We recognize that what parents and grandparents want most is to be able to spend time with their families.”
“If we do not take real action now, the large and growing backlog in the parents and grandparents program will lead to completely unmanageable wait times. Through this balanced series of measures, we will be able to dramatically reduce the backlog and wait times, while the new Parent and Grandparent Super Visa will allow more family members to pay extended visits to their loved ones,” added the Minister. “We anticipate that in about two years, following our consultations, Phase II of our Action Plan for Faster Family Reunification will come into effect, ensuring that future applicants are processed quickly and that the program can operate on an efficient and sustainable basis.”
For additional information on Phase I of CIC’s Action Plan for Faster Family Reunification, see the attached backgrounder.
NEW BRUNSWICK HALTS PROVINCIAL NOMINEE PROGRAM AMID CONCERNS
New Brunswick joins other provinces suspending its Provincial Nominee Program( PNP) amid serious concerns raised by its Auditor General. The province joins P.E.I. in taking such action. PNPs have grown out of proportion with the Federal immigration program, and lack appropriate controls. In addition, it appears that few people take up residency in the provinces, preferring to move to larger metropolitan areas once they receive residency.
N.B. stops accepting immigration applicants from China - CTV News
N.B. stops accepting immigration applicants from China - CTV News
Thursday, November 3, 2011
GOOD NEWS FOR FOREIGN PhD STUDENTS IN CANADA
Foreign PhD candidates in Canada who have completed at least two years of their candidacy will now qualify for a new immigration program and be able to obtain residency. Details will be released shortly.
Canada opens up immigration to foreign PhD students - Politics - CBC News
Canada opens up immigration to foreign PhD students - Politics - CBC News
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
QUESTIONABLE INTERPRETATION NOT ENOGUH TO REVERSE NEGATIVE DEciSION
The case below points to the threshold that must be crossed by an applicant who claims that the interpretation at his hearing was imperfect. The court rejected the argument, noting the that the bar in these cases is quite high. Note the comments at the end of the case.
Sohal v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
Between
Manwinder Singh Sohal, Applicant, and
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness,
Respondent
[2011] F.C.J. No. 1444
2011 FC 1175
Docket IMM-1078-11
Federal Court
Vancouver, British Columbia
Harrington J.
Heard: October 12, 2011.
Judgment: October 18, 2011.
(24 paras.)
________________________________________
• REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
1 HARRINGTON J.:-- Natural justice requires that a person be given a fair opportunity to make his case or to meet the case against him. It may be that the person does not speak the language of the Tribunal. In that case, he is entitled to an interpreter. The issue in this judicial review is whether the interpretation was so poor that Mr. Sohal did not have a fair opportunity to make his case.
2 Mr. Sohal, a permanent resident since 1992, had been ordered deported pursuant to section 36(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) as a result of his conviction for assault with a weapon. He appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. He testified with the aide of an English/Punjabi interpreter. He was represented by counsel, who did not himself speak Punjabi, and presumably neither did the tribunal member.
3 On 25 January 2009, the IAD dismissed his appeal. He did not seek judicial review, but subsequently retained other counsel who applied to the IAD to reopen the appeal on the basis that the interpretation at the hearing had been so poor it constituted a breach of natural justice.
4 The legal basis of a request to reopen an appeal is section 71 of IRPA which provides:
• 71.
The Immigration Appeal Division, on application by a foreign national who has not left Canada under a removal order, may reopen an appeal if it is satisfied that it failed to observe a principle of natural justice. 71. L'étranger qui n'a pas quitté le Canada à la suite de la mesure de renvoi peut demander la réouverture de l'appel sur preuve de manquement à un principe de justice naturelle.
5 The IAD's refusal to reopen is the subject of this judicial review.
THE APPLICATION TO REOPEN
6 At the heart of the application before the IAD was the affidavit of Sarb Sandhu, an accredited interpreter fluent in the Punjabi and English languages. He has had a great deal of experience and from 1982 to the present has acted as an interpreter and translator at the IRB, the Provincial and Supreme Courts of British Columbia and elsewhere. Indeed, he has audited translations on behalf of the IRB.
7 Mr. Sandhu reviewed the recording of the proceedings and sets out what he considers to be a number of errors. The member of the IAD, who decided not to reopen the appeal, was not the member who heard the appeal in the first place. He cited jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and this Court in support of the proposition that errors in interpretation, which prevent a party from telling his or her story, may lead to be breach of natural justice. However, the errors must be material.
8 The member noted that the Minister had not taken issue with the alternative language suggested by Mr. Sandhu. He said: "I accept that this auditor, given the luxury of time to consider carefully the precise wording that is appropriate, in his professional opinion, has chosen different language where those concerns are expressed in his affidavit."
9 He concluded, however, based on particular passages cited, that distinctions between the two versions were trivial, or would not lead to a misunderstanding.
10 The member concluded that Mr. Sohal had not shown that the interpretation was not continuous, precise, competent, impartial and contemporaneous, or that he was unable to tell his story due to misinterpretations. The alleged misinterpretations were not linked to any aspect of the member's decision that could reasonably have resulted in the negative decision Mr. Sohal sought to overcome.
11 The member also pointed out that although Mr. Sohal's counsel at the appeal did not speak Punjabi, neither did he raise any concerns regarding the English translation of the evidence. He said at paragraph 21 of his decision:
• Regardless of whether or not he spoke Punjabi and could monitor the quality of the interpretation at the hearing, he ought to have known that the applicant's answers to questions were incorrect, incomplete or indicated confusion on the applicant's part. It would not be proper for counsel to hold back from exploring discrepancies, perhaps due to fear that further questioning would do more harm than good, and then seek relief in the form of a reopening, due to those same discrepancies.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
12 It is beyond doubt that this Court owes no, indeed must not show any, deference to the decision of the Tribunal under review on issues of natural justice (either these issues are beyond the scope of the standard of review, see C.U.P.E. v Ontario (Minister of Labour), 2003 SCC 29, [2003] 1 SCR 539; or the standard of review is correctness; see Sketchley v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 404, [2006] 3 FCR 392).
13 However, since the issue here is the quality of the interpretation, given the vast experience of the IRB, I queried at the hearing if the decision should be assessed as to its reasonableness. Counsel for the Minister was not prepared to take up the point and assumed that the standard of review is correctness. I have assessed on that standard, and find no breach of natural justice. Consequently, the standard of review pertaining to the quality of interpretation, rather than to the right to interpretation, shall be left to another day.
ISSUES
14 In my view, this case raises three issues. The first is whether there was a breach of natural justice. This is dependent on the quality of the interpretation between English and Punjabi. The second issue is whether the applicant waved such rights as he may otherwise have had by failing to complain about the quality of the interpretation at the earliest opportunity. The third issue is more technical. It relates to the lack of affidavit evidence.
15 Both parties agree that concerns about the quality of interpretation should be raised at the earliest opportunity. Nuances have been raised, depending on the applicant's knowledge of the language of the Tribunal, be it English or French, and his lawyer's knowledge of the applicant's language, in this case Punjabi. However, there is no need to deal with this issue as, in my opinion, there was nothing to complain about.
16 Likewise, in the light of my decision, it is not necessary to consider whether Messrs Sohal and Sandhu should have provided affidavits in this Court. Certainly, Mr. Sandhu's evidence before the IAD was in affidavit form and that affidavit forms part of the record.
17 A leading case dealing with interpretation issues in the immigration and refugee law context is Mohammadian v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 3 FC 371, [2000] FCJ No 309 (QL), appeal dismissed, 2001 FCA 191, [2001] 4 FC 85, application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court dismissed, [2001] SCCA No. 435 (QL). Mr. Mohammadian was an Iranian Kurd. The first hearing of his refugee claim had to be adjourned because the interpreter and Mr. Mohammadian could not communicate with each other. Apparently, there are four variants of the Kurdish language, depending on one's country of residence, Turkey, Iran, Iraq or Syria. When the hearing first resumed, the interpreter was an Iranian Kurd. There were no difficulties. At the third hearing there was another interpreter. There appeared to be some minor difficulties during the course of the hearing, but no objection was taken at the time. The case is one of many which have held that the quality of interpretation should have been raised during the hearing itself because it was obvious to the applicant that there were problems between him and the interpreter.
18 As to the right to interpretation, Mr. Justice Pelletier, in first instance, applied the decision of the Supreme Court in R v Tran, [1994] 2 SCR 951, a criminal law case. He held that article 14 of the Charter applied and that the interpretation should be continuous, precise, impartial, competent and contemporaneous. Although the standard of interpretation is high, it need not be so high as to be perfect. If a breach of this standard is shown, it is not necessary to show actual prejudice. This is entirely consistent with the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Cardinal v Director of Kent Institution, [1985] 2 SCR 643.
19 Mohamaddian, above, was appealed on certified questions. Speaking for the Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Stone answered the three certified questions as follows:
• a.
Must the interpretation provided to applicants be continuous, precise, competent, impartial and contemporaneous? Yes.
• b.
Must applicants show they have suffered actual prejudice as a result of a breach of the standard of interpretation before the Court can interfere with the CRDD's decision? No.
• c.
Where it is reasonable to expect an applicant to do so, such as when an applicant has difficulty understanding the interpreter, must the applicant object to the quality of interpretation before the CRDD as a condition of being able to raise the quality of interpretation as a ground of judicial review? Yes.
20 In this particular case, unlike Mohammadian, above, the problem, if any, does not appear to be with the interpreter's Punjabi, but rather with his translations to and from English.
21 The issue here is whether the interpretation was "competent", i.e. of a high enough standard to ensure that justice was done and was seen to be done, keeping in mind that the interpretation need not be perfect.
22 While, on reflection, the English could have been better, I agree with the IAD that the language was satisfactory and did not prejudice Mr. Sohal in any way. Let me give but one example. Mr. Sandhu said in his affidavit at point 25 s.:
• Also, during the questioning of the Claimant, the word 'evidence' is consistently misinterpreted as 'proof' when there is a specific and exact Punjabi word available.
23 This surely is a distinction without a difference. The heading of entry 957 in Rogets International Thesaurus, 6th Ed, a most-useful educational tool, (MacKay v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FC 856, 372 FTR 299, [2010] FCJ No 1016 (QL)) is titled "EVIDENCE, PROOF". Prime nouns include "evidence", "proof", "reasons to believe" and "manifestation". Prime examples of verbs include "evince", "show', "testify", "give evidence" and "prove".
24 As to the quality of interpretation, as Chief Justice Lamer noted in Tran, above, at page 978:
• ...the principle of linguistic understanding which underpins the right to interpreter assistance should not be elevated to the point where those with difficulty communicating in or comprehending the language of the proceedings, be it in English or French, are given or seen to be given unfair advantages over those who are fluent in the court's language.
• [Applied by Mr. Justice de Montigny in Bal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1178, [2008] FCJ No 1460 (QL) at para 27]
See also Mr. Justice de Montigny's more recent decision in Dhaliwal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1097 at para 18.
ORDER
FOR REASONS GIVEN;
THIS COURT ORDERS that
• 1. This application for judicial review is dismissed.
• 2. There is no serious question of general importance to certify.
HARRINGTON J.
Sohal v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)
Between
Manwinder Singh Sohal, Applicant, and
The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness,
Respondent
[2011] F.C.J. No. 1444
2011 FC 1175
Docket IMM-1078-11
Federal Court
Vancouver, British Columbia
Harrington J.
Heard: October 12, 2011.
Judgment: October 18, 2011.
(24 paras.)
________________________________________
• REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
1 HARRINGTON J.:-- Natural justice requires that a person be given a fair opportunity to make his case or to meet the case against him. It may be that the person does not speak the language of the Tribunal. In that case, he is entitled to an interpreter. The issue in this judicial review is whether the interpretation was so poor that Mr. Sohal did not have a fair opportunity to make his case.
2 Mr. Sohal, a permanent resident since 1992, had been ordered deported pursuant to section 36(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) as a result of his conviction for assault with a weapon. He appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. He testified with the aide of an English/Punjabi interpreter. He was represented by counsel, who did not himself speak Punjabi, and presumably neither did the tribunal member.
3 On 25 January 2009, the IAD dismissed his appeal. He did not seek judicial review, but subsequently retained other counsel who applied to the IAD to reopen the appeal on the basis that the interpretation at the hearing had been so poor it constituted a breach of natural justice.
4 The legal basis of a request to reopen an appeal is section 71 of IRPA which provides:
• 71.
The Immigration Appeal Division, on application by a foreign national who has not left Canada under a removal order, may reopen an appeal if it is satisfied that it failed to observe a principle of natural justice. 71. L'étranger qui n'a pas quitté le Canada à la suite de la mesure de renvoi peut demander la réouverture de l'appel sur preuve de manquement à un principe de justice naturelle.
5 The IAD's refusal to reopen is the subject of this judicial review.
THE APPLICATION TO REOPEN
6 At the heart of the application before the IAD was the affidavit of Sarb Sandhu, an accredited interpreter fluent in the Punjabi and English languages. He has had a great deal of experience and from 1982 to the present has acted as an interpreter and translator at the IRB, the Provincial and Supreme Courts of British Columbia and elsewhere. Indeed, he has audited translations on behalf of the IRB.
7 Mr. Sandhu reviewed the recording of the proceedings and sets out what he considers to be a number of errors. The member of the IAD, who decided not to reopen the appeal, was not the member who heard the appeal in the first place. He cited jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Appeal and this Court in support of the proposition that errors in interpretation, which prevent a party from telling his or her story, may lead to be breach of natural justice. However, the errors must be material.
8 The member noted that the Minister had not taken issue with the alternative language suggested by Mr. Sandhu. He said: "I accept that this auditor, given the luxury of time to consider carefully the precise wording that is appropriate, in his professional opinion, has chosen different language where those concerns are expressed in his affidavit."
9 He concluded, however, based on particular passages cited, that distinctions between the two versions were trivial, or would not lead to a misunderstanding.
10 The member concluded that Mr. Sohal had not shown that the interpretation was not continuous, precise, competent, impartial and contemporaneous, or that he was unable to tell his story due to misinterpretations. The alleged misinterpretations were not linked to any aspect of the member's decision that could reasonably have resulted in the negative decision Mr. Sohal sought to overcome.
11 The member also pointed out that although Mr. Sohal's counsel at the appeal did not speak Punjabi, neither did he raise any concerns regarding the English translation of the evidence. He said at paragraph 21 of his decision:
• Regardless of whether or not he spoke Punjabi and could monitor the quality of the interpretation at the hearing, he ought to have known that the applicant's answers to questions were incorrect, incomplete or indicated confusion on the applicant's part. It would not be proper for counsel to hold back from exploring discrepancies, perhaps due to fear that further questioning would do more harm than good, and then seek relief in the form of a reopening, due to those same discrepancies.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
12 It is beyond doubt that this Court owes no, indeed must not show any, deference to the decision of the Tribunal under review on issues of natural justice (either these issues are beyond the scope of the standard of review, see C.U.P.E. v Ontario (Minister of Labour), 2003 SCC 29, [2003] 1 SCR 539; or the standard of review is correctness; see Sketchley v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 404, [2006] 3 FCR 392).
13 However, since the issue here is the quality of the interpretation, given the vast experience of the IRB, I queried at the hearing if the decision should be assessed as to its reasonableness. Counsel for the Minister was not prepared to take up the point and assumed that the standard of review is correctness. I have assessed on that standard, and find no breach of natural justice. Consequently, the standard of review pertaining to the quality of interpretation, rather than to the right to interpretation, shall be left to another day.
ISSUES
14 In my view, this case raises three issues. The first is whether there was a breach of natural justice. This is dependent on the quality of the interpretation between English and Punjabi. The second issue is whether the applicant waved such rights as he may otherwise have had by failing to complain about the quality of the interpretation at the earliest opportunity. The third issue is more technical. It relates to the lack of affidavit evidence.
15 Both parties agree that concerns about the quality of interpretation should be raised at the earliest opportunity. Nuances have been raised, depending on the applicant's knowledge of the language of the Tribunal, be it English or French, and his lawyer's knowledge of the applicant's language, in this case Punjabi. However, there is no need to deal with this issue as, in my opinion, there was nothing to complain about.
16 Likewise, in the light of my decision, it is not necessary to consider whether Messrs Sohal and Sandhu should have provided affidavits in this Court. Certainly, Mr. Sandhu's evidence before the IAD was in affidavit form and that affidavit forms part of the record.
17 A leading case dealing with interpretation issues in the immigration and refugee law context is Mohammadian v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 3 FC 371, [2000] FCJ No 309 (QL), appeal dismissed, 2001 FCA 191, [2001] 4 FC 85, application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court dismissed, [2001] SCCA No. 435 (QL). Mr. Mohammadian was an Iranian Kurd. The first hearing of his refugee claim had to be adjourned because the interpreter and Mr. Mohammadian could not communicate with each other. Apparently, there are four variants of the Kurdish language, depending on one's country of residence, Turkey, Iran, Iraq or Syria. When the hearing first resumed, the interpreter was an Iranian Kurd. There were no difficulties. At the third hearing there was another interpreter. There appeared to be some minor difficulties during the course of the hearing, but no objection was taken at the time. The case is one of many which have held that the quality of interpretation should have been raised during the hearing itself because it was obvious to the applicant that there were problems between him and the interpreter.
18 As to the right to interpretation, Mr. Justice Pelletier, in first instance, applied the decision of the Supreme Court in R v Tran, [1994] 2 SCR 951, a criminal law case. He held that article 14 of the Charter applied and that the interpretation should be continuous, precise, impartial, competent and contemporaneous. Although the standard of interpretation is high, it need not be so high as to be perfect. If a breach of this standard is shown, it is not necessary to show actual prejudice. This is entirely consistent with the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Cardinal v Director of Kent Institution, [1985] 2 SCR 643.
19 Mohamaddian, above, was appealed on certified questions. Speaking for the Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Stone answered the three certified questions as follows:
• a.
Must the interpretation provided to applicants be continuous, precise, competent, impartial and contemporaneous? Yes.
• b.
Must applicants show they have suffered actual prejudice as a result of a breach of the standard of interpretation before the Court can interfere with the CRDD's decision? No.
• c.
Where it is reasonable to expect an applicant to do so, such as when an applicant has difficulty understanding the interpreter, must the applicant object to the quality of interpretation before the CRDD as a condition of being able to raise the quality of interpretation as a ground of judicial review? Yes.
20 In this particular case, unlike Mohammadian, above, the problem, if any, does not appear to be with the interpreter's Punjabi, but rather with his translations to and from English.
21 The issue here is whether the interpretation was "competent", i.e. of a high enough standard to ensure that justice was done and was seen to be done, keeping in mind that the interpretation need not be perfect.
22 While, on reflection, the English could have been better, I agree with the IAD that the language was satisfactory and did not prejudice Mr. Sohal in any way. Let me give but one example. Mr. Sandhu said in his affidavit at point 25 s.:
• Also, during the questioning of the Claimant, the word 'evidence' is consistently misinterpreted as 'proof' when there is a specific and exact Punjabi word available.
23 This surely is a distinction without a difference. The heading of entry 957 in Rogets International Thesaurus, 6th Ed, a most-useful educational tool, (MacKay v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FC 856, 372 FTR 299, [2010] FCJ No 1016 (QL)) is titled "EVIDENCE, PROOF". Prime nouns include "evidence", "proof", "reasons to believe" and "manifestation". Prime examples of verbs include "evince", "show', "testify", "give evidence" and "prove".
24 As to the quality of interpretation, as Chief Justice Lamer noted in Tran, above, at page 978:
• ...the principle of linguistic understanding which underpins the right to interpreter assistance should not be elevated to the point where those with difficulty communicating in or comprehending the language of the proceedings, be it in English or French, are given or seen to be given unfair advantages over those who are fluent in the court's language.
• [Applied by Mr. Justice de Montigny in Bal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1178, [2008] FCJ No 1460 (QL) at para 27]
See also Mr. Justice de Montigny's more recent decision in Dhaliwal v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1097 at para 18.
ORDER
FOR REASONS GIVEN;
THIS COURT ORDERS that
• 1. This application for judicial review is dismissed.
• 2. There is no serious question of general importance to certify.
HARRINGTON J.
CBSA INVESTIGATING MARRIAGE FRAUD SCHEMES
Read the report below. It seems that there are a number of criminal investigations into marriage fraud. That means that there may be organized crime involved, as usually a marriage fraud discovery only triggers a denial of status, or a hearing to revoke it, but no criminal charges as they are nearly impossible to prove in "run of the mill" cases.
Marriage fraud targeted by Canada border agency - Politics - CBC News
Marriage fraud targeted by Canada border agency - Politics - CBC News
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
COURT DISMISSES LAWSUIT OVER IMMIGRANT SERVICES FUNDING
The Court did not buy the agency;'s claims. I think the government should not fund any "agencies" and let the free market operate in immigrant services.
Peel immigrant agency loses lawsuit - thestar.com
Peel immigrant agency loses lawsuit
October 31, 2011
Nicholas Keung
A Peel immigrant settlement agency shut down amid allegations of financial mismanagement has lost a lawsuit it filed against the federal government.
In an order issued last week, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a motion by the Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services to proceed with a $12-million lawsuit against Citizenship and Immigration Canada and two government officials, alleging negligence and breach of duty.
It was a setback for the Mississauga-based agency, which closed in 2009 after immigration officials terminated its annual $5 million funding. The group provided language, employment and referral services to 40,000 immigrants a year.
Justice Robert Spence ordered the agency pay $7,500 in legal costs and ruled that the government could proceed with a counterclaim it had subsequently filed against the plaintiff.
An immigration spokesperson said Monday the department is “pleased” with the decision and will proceed to recoup $227,000 in overpayments previously made to the agency.
“ICNSS was given the opportunity to respond to many concerns expressed over several years with unexplained inconsistencies in its financial reporting, but did not provide satisfactory responses,” the department said in a statement.
“When the concerns were not addressed, the government decided not to enter into new agreements.”
The agency’s board filed the lawsuit against the immigration department in 2010, alleging that it halted its funding based on “unsubstantiated and incredible allegations” in anonymous letters and which the government never properly investigated before terminating its funding.
Officials with ICNSS could not be reached for comment.
Peel immigrant agency loses lawsuit - thestar.com
Peel immigrant agency loses lawsuit
October 31, 2011
Nicholas Keung
A Peel immigrant settlement agency shut down amid allegations of financial mismanagement has lost a lawsuit it filed against the federal government.
In an order issued last week, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a motion by the Inter-Cultural Neighbourhood Social Services to proceed with a $12-million lawsuit against Citizenship and Immigration Canada and two government officials, alleging negligence and breach of duty.
It was a setback for the Mississauga-based agency, which closed in 2009 after immigration officials terminated its annual $5 million funding. The group provided language, employment and referral services to 40,000 immigrants a year.
Justice Robert Spence ordered the agency pay $7,500 in legal costs and ruled that the government could proceed with a counterclaim it had subsequently filed against the plaintiff.
An immigration spokesperson said Monday the department is “pleased” with the decision and will proceed to recoup $227,000 in overpayments previously made to the agency.
“ICNSS was given the opportunity to respond to many concerns expressed over several years with unexplained inconsistencies in its financial reporting, but did not provide satisfactory responses,” the department said in a statement.
“When the concerns were not addressed, the government decided not to enter into new agreements.”
The agency’s board filed the lawsuit against the immigration department in 2010, alleging that it halted its funding based on “unsubstantiated and incredible allegations” in anonymous letters and which the government never properly investigated before terminating its funding.
Officials with ICNSS could not be reached for comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
