Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Gebremariam v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )

IMM-62-94

Muldoon J.

8/3/95

10 pp.

Application for judicial review of Convention Refugee Determination Division (CRDD) decision whereby, in view of finding applicant disposing of travel document without valid reason, split decision deemed negative determination pursuant to Act, s. 69.1(10.1)(a) -- Applicant, 15-year-old girl from Ethiopia, handing over false passport to individual receiving her upon arrival in U.S. -- Issue whether reasonable grounds to believe applicant, without valid reason, destroying or disposing of identity documents in her possession -- Ratio of Sebastiampillai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 87 F.T.R. 259 (F.C.T.D.) i.e. cannot "spring" s. 69.1(10.1)(a) decision on applicant, not applicable as record showing clear reference to identity documents -- Court adopting Sebastiampillai obiter holding expression "disposal of identity documents" not so narrowly confined as to refer only to identity documents correctly identifying individual; expression also including false or fraudulent documents -- 14 or 15-year-old girl in bewildering, strange country, instructed to put trust in person receiving her, demanding much lower standard of "valid reason" than more worldly-wise or self-assured adult -- Positive finding of reasonableness of applicant's conduct: reasonable of young, naïve, teenage girl to have handed over passport to man who was to take care of her -- Evidence clear applicant not destroying false passport -- Expression "disposed of" and its French language equivalent "se départir de" connoting intention or act of will; words not connoting victimization by theft, robbery, trickery or intimidation -- CRDD erring in law by applying statutory words "disposed of identity documents in [her] possession" to circumstances of case -- Applicant's refugee claim standing accepted by CRDD -- Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 69.1(10.1)(a) (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 18; 1992, c. 29, s. 60).

 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.