Date: 19980729
Docket: IMM-2732-97
BETWEEN:
SYLVESTER SRI RAJAKULENDRAN AUGUSTINE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Let the attached certified transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered orally from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on July 15, 1998, be filed to comply with section 51 of the Federal Court Act.
Judge
OTTAWA, Ontario
Court File No. IMM-2732-97
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
(TRIAL DIVISION)
B E T W E E N :
SYLVESTER SRI RAJAKULENDRAN AUGUSTINE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
_________________________________________________________
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE TEITELBAUM
_________________________________________________________
HELD AT: Federal Court of Canada,
330 University Avenue,
Toronto, Ontario.
DATE: July 15, 1998
ORAL REASONS
APPEARANCES:
Kumar S. Sriskanda for the Applicant
Bridget O'Leary for the Respondent
THE COURT: I think I can give you my decision now.
I am going to allow the application and return this matter for a new hearing, but specifically because a possibility exists that counsel for the applicant and the applicant may have misunderstood what the Board or Panel meant when they said that they would not discuss the issue of personal identity.
I say that because after listening to both counsel, both explanations are plausible, but in that we are dealing with an issue of natural justice, I believe it would be in the interests of justice that a new Panel consider this matter and that the same possible misunderstanding that may have taken place not take place again.
I do not wish in any way to influence the new Panel that will hear the claim of this individual, but I must state, after having read the entire transcript, that I can see that the decision of the Panel was reasonable on the issue of credibility.
Nevertheless, because the Refugee Claim Officer File Screening Form clearly states that three issues would be discussed and, in fact, only the issue of credibility was discussed by the Refugee Panel, in that the issue of internal flight alternative is not mentioned in the decision and the issue of personal identity or identity with the NIC document becoming involved may have influenced counsel for the applicant in his final submissions to the Panel and may have misunderstood exactly what was going to be considered, I think that it is the wise choice to return it for a new hearing.
I have read the decision of Mr. Justice Rothstein in Nasandi and The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and it appears that it would be very, very similar to our case, but the reasons are not elaborated upon by Mr. Justice Rothstein. Basically, what he states applies in this case in the sense that counsel for the applicant was led to believe what he thought identity meant and personal identity meant and there was much more discussed in the decision of the Panel than what he thought should have been discussed and, therefore, the matter will be redetermined by another Panel at a hearing where all parties will have a clear understanding of the issues.
I want to reiterate, I do not in any way indicate with my reasons that this individual applicant is a refugee or not. It will be for the new Panel to make that decision.