IMM-2453-96
B E T W E E N:
SHERRY PHARBATTI MOHAMMED
CRYSTAL STACY MOHAMMED
CHRISTIAN STEFAN MOHAMMED
Applicants
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
Wednesday, the 9th day of April, 1997 as edited)
ROTHSTEIN,J.:
The applicant argues that the panel in this case failed to take account of documentary evidence indicating that the government of Trinidad and Tobago is unable to protect women in domestic violence situations. However, the panel's decision does refer to evidence of the applicant herself of women being killed by abusive husbands despite the fact that they had restraining orders. The decision also observes that domestic violence legislation enacted by Trinidad and Tobago is for the purpose of addressing "a troubling and universally pervasive area of abuse, namely abuse of women in domestic situations".
The evidence to which applicant's counsel has referred consists of incidents in which women in domestic violence situations were not given effective protection by the state. However, as counsel for the respondent points out, the issue has to be considered having regard to Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Villafranca, [1992] 18 Imm. L.R. (2d) 130 in which at page 132 Hugessen, J.A. states:
| "No government that makes any claim to democratic values or protection of human rights can guarantee the protection of all of its citizens at all times. Thus, it is not enough for a claimant merely to show that his government has not always been effective at protecting persons in his particular situation." |
The evidence to which counsel has referred indicates that the State has not been able to offer protection in every case. The fact that there are incidents in which, notwithstanding the existence of laws and police protection, the State fails to protect, does not mean that the State is incapable of protecting its citizens as Villafranca explains.
In this particular case, there is another circumstance that merits mention. With respect to the particular applicant, on two occasions she did seek police assistance and according to the evidence that assistance was provided to her. Therefore in respect of the applicant herself, the evidence is, that when she did seek police protection it was available.
I am satisfied that the panel had regard to all the evidence that was relevant in arriving at its decision and applied the correct principles. The judicial review is dismissed.
"Marshall E. Rothstein"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
April 11, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-2453-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: SHERRY PHARBATTI MOHAMMED
CRYSTAL STACY MOHAMMED
CHRISTIAN STEFAN MOHAMMED
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: APRIL 9, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: ROTHSTEIN, J.
DATED: APRIL 11, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Toni Schweitzer
For the Applicants
Mr. Jeremiah Eastman
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
JACKMAN & ASSOCIATES
Toni Schweitzer
200-196 Adelaide Street West
Toronto, Ontario
M5X 1N6
For the Applicants
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-2453-96
Between:
SHERRY PHARBATTI MOHAMMED
CRYSTAL STACY MOHAMMED
CHRISTIAN STEFAN MOHAMMED
Applicants
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER