Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19990624


Docket: IMM-4929-98

BETWEEN:

     LILYA KVIATKOVSKY

YAACOV SONIN

SOFIA SONIN


Applicants

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent


REASONS FOR ORDER

McKEOWN J.

[1]      The applicants, citizens of Israel, seek judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board Convention Refugee Determination Division ("the Board"), dated August 26, 1998, wherein it determined that they are not Convention refugees.

[2]      The issue is whether the finding that adequate state protection exists in Israel for the principal female applicant who is an abused woman, whose life is in danger, is an error.

[3]      The Board found at page 9 of the reasons:

             Based on all the evidence the panel finds that if the principal claimant returns to Israel effective state protection would be reasonably forthcoming to her if she seeks such protection and it would not be objectively unreasonable in the circumstances for the principal claimant to seek out the protection of the Israeli authorities.             

[4]      In my view this case is comparable to Kadenka v. Canada (Solicitor General) [1996] 124 F.T.R. 160, where the following certified question was decided in the negative:

             Where there has been a complete breakdown of a governmental apparatus and where a state has political and judicial institutions capable of protecting its citizens, does the refusal by certain police officers to take action suffice to establish that the state in question is unable or unwilling to protect its nationals?             

In the case before me the principal female applicant contacted the police twice about her abuser, a prominent, wealthy and influential man, and her efforts were unsuccessful.

[5]      The finding that Israel is a democratic country and that the "protection provided in Israel exists and is not difficult to access" is supported by the evidence and the legal conclusion is supported by the case law, it is not my role to substitute my opinion on the evidence for that of the Refugee Board.

[6]      The application for judicial review is dismissed.

"W.P. McKeown"

Judge

TORONTO, ONTARIO

June 24, 1999

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-4929-98

STYLE OF CAUSE:                      LILYA KVIATKOVSKY

                             YAACOV SONIN

                             SOFIA SONIN

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                             AND IMMIGRATION

DATE OF HEARING:                  THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1999

PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:              McKEOWN J.

DATED:                          THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1999

APPEARANCES:                      Ms. Pamila Bhardwaj

                                     For the Applicant

                             Ms. Marissa Bielski

                                     For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              Bhardwaj, Pohani

                             Barristers & Solicitors

                             806-2161 Yonge St.,

                             Toronto, Ontario

                             M4S 3A6

                                     For the Applicant

                             Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General

                             of Canada

                                     For the Respondent

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 19990624

                        

         Docket: IMM-4929-98

                             Between:

                             LILYA KVIATKOVSKY

                             YAACOV SONIN

                             SOFIA SONIN

                                             Applicant

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                             AND IMMIGRATION

                                             Respondent

                            

                             REASONS FOR ORDER

                            

 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.