Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20010102

Docket: IMM-2059-00

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, JANUARY 2, 2001

BEFORE:        J.E. DUBÉ J.

BETWEEN:

                                                         MOHAN SINGH MAVI

                                                        RAJINDER KAUR MAVI

                                                                                                                                               Plaintiff

                                                                         - and -

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                           Defendant

                                                                       ORDER

The application for judicial review is dismissed.

                                 Judge

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.


Date: 20010102

Docket: IMM-2059-00

BETWEEN:

                                                         MOHAN SINGH MAVI

                                                        RAJINDER KAUR MAVI

                                                                                                                                               Plaintiff

                                                                         - and -

                           THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                           Defendant

                                                        REASONS FOR ORDER

DUBÉ J.

[1]         This judicial review is from a decision of the Refugee Division of the Immigration Board ("the Refugee Division") on August 27, 1999 that the plaintiffs are not Convention refugees.

[2]         The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, are nationals of India and originally from the Punjab. They alleged that their problem was connected with the fact that they helped a leader of the Alkali Dal Party (Badal), Ravinder Singh, who lived in their village. They said Ravinder Singh mistreated one of his employees, Karnail Singh, and the latter swore vengeance and threatened everyone who helped Ravinder Singh, including the male plaintiff, who in December 1993 helped him in the harvest with his tractor. According to their testimony, the plaintiffs were detained, questioned and tortured and the wife was raped.

[3]         The Refugee Division accorded the plaintiffs no credibility and explained why in its very detailed reasons. It noted the contradictions in their testimony, their omissions, their behaviour at the hearing and the improbability of their accounts. It gave in clear and unambiguous terms the reasons why it doubted the truth of the plaintiffs' testimony.

[4]         A careful review of the transcript of testimony filed at the hearing indicates that the plaintiffs, represented by their counsel, had an opportunity to respond to all the questions put by the tribunal. It appeared that the Refugee Division made certain minor and inconsequential errors in its conclusion that the plaintiffs lacked credibility. The transcript confirmed that the tribunal's findings were entirely reasonable and not vitiated by palpable or overriding errors which could have undermined its assessment of the facts.

[5]         It is well established that it is the Refugee Division's function to assess the evidence and determine the credibility of witnesses. It is not for the Court to impose its own conclusions regarding the probability of testimony. After all, it is the Refugee Division which is in a position to consider whether the witnesses are spontaneous, their hesitations or reticence, and their attitude and behaviour before the tribunal. Unless there is obvious error this Court should not impose its views in this area.

[6]         This application for judicial review must accordingly be dismissed.

[7]         In my opinion, there is no question of general importance to be certified.

                                 Judge

OTTAWA, Ontario

January 2, 2001

Certified true translation

Suzanne M. Gauthier, LL.L. Trad. a.


                                                   FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                                               TRIAL DIVISION

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT No.:                                                    IMM-2059-00

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                         MOHAN SINGH MAVI and RAJINDER KAUR MAVI v. MCI

PLACE OF HEARING:                                    Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                          December 19, 2000

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:                        DUBÉ J.

DATED:                                                            January 2, 2001

APPEARANCES:

Michel Le Brun                                                                          FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Michel Pépin                                                                                         FOR THE DEFENDANT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Michel Le Brun                                                                          FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Montréal, Quebec

Morris Rosenberg                                                                                  FOR THE DEFENDANT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

 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.