Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Ashton v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )

IMM-1904-97

Campbell J.

24/2/98

24 pp.

Application for judicial review of Minister's opinion applicant danger to public in Canada-Applicant, born in England, admitted to Canada at age 11 in 1975, with parents and three brothers-Son born in Canada-After numerous convictions, applicant deported to England and awaits decision on application-First danger opinion quashed-In letter informing applicant of Minister's objection to re-opening appeal, applicant advised second danger opinion considered-Minister never advised directly or through solicitor subsequent danger opinion considered, nor invited to make further submissions-In addition, not advised of consequence of such opinion-Second danger opinion issued-Application allowed-Minister failed to discharge duty of fairness by providing applicant with clear and unambiguous notice further danger opinion being taken against him and could provide further submissions-Furthermore, opinion itself inappropriate-Test whether person "present or future danger to public"-Minister's guidelines examined-Case, reports and recommendations examined-Test not met: evidence supporting conclusion applicant was not and would not be danger to public in future-Reviewable error as Minister's decision so profoundly unresponsive to evidence as to be on its face perverse-Evidence manifestly requiring different result-Opinion set aside as based on erroneous finding of fact made in capricious manner and without regard to evidence.

 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.