Federal Appeal


Rehabilitation of claimant after committing crime irrelevant

This was appeal of dismissal of application for judicial review. Appellant was national of Albania. Greek court found that appellant fatally stabbed another Albanian while living in Greece during fight. Appellant was convicted and released. He could no longer live in Albania because killing provoked blood feud between his family and deceased’s family. Appellant came to Canada and claimed refugee protection. Delegate of respondent Minister refused to provide opinion that appellant was dangerous. Claim for refugee protection was not ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”). Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (“MPSEP”) intervened. RPD rejected appellant’s claim for refugee protection on ground that he was excluded from definition of refugee by Article 1F(B) of United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Application judge dismissed application for judicial review. Appeal dismissed. Claimant’s dangerousness was not relevant to determination of whether claim was excluded from refugee definition by Article 1F(b). Fact that respondent declined to provide opinion that appellant was danger to public in Canada did not estop MPSEP from intervening before RPD to argue for exclusion. Issues at eligibility and exclusion stages were different. MPSEP did not unreasonably exercise discretion to intervene. Rehabilitation of claimant after committing crime and current dangerousness were irrelevant at exclusion stage. Appellant’s crime was presumptively serious because if he had been found guilty in Canada of equivalent crime of manslaughter, he could have been sentenced to maximum of at least ten years’ imprisonment. RPD’s overall conclusion on material before it that there were serious reasons for considering that appellant committed serious crime was not unreasonable.

Feimi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (Dec. 7, 2012, F.C.A., Evans, Sharlow and Stratas JJ.A., File No. A-90-12) Decision at 216 A.C.W.S. (3d) 989 was affirmed. 223 A.C.W.S. (3d) 851.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?