Thai v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-2805-97
Reed J.
9/1/98
8 pp.
Application to set aside Minister's delegate's decision applicant danger to public in Canada-Applicant convicted of sexual assault-Only occasion on which charged with criminal offence-Assaulted woman had met through dancing classes-Enticed her to by trickery to hotel bedroom-Ceased assault, although not immediately, when victim vigorously defended herself, repeatedly told him to stop-Expressed remorse, apologized-Accompanied her back to aunt, co-operated with police when incident reported-Sentencing judge referring to incident as isolated-Letter dated October 15, 1996 from Case Management Officer in Edmonton District Parole Office citing five factors in support of opinion applicant at high risk of recidivism-All but one factor (applicant using cognitive distortions to rationalize behaviour, i.e. behaviour acceptable in Vietnam, and refusing to participate in treatment) merely descriptive of offence-Denial of guilt when incarcerated balanced against expression of remorse at time of incident, trial-While October 15 letter stating applicant refusing to participate in treatment, not referred to treatment since denying guilt-October 15 letter stating offender's risk could not be managed in community; moderate to high risk of re-offending in similar fashion; applicant untreated sex offender with little insight into criminal offence cycle-Letter not identifying facts (studies, psychological assessment of applicant, behaviour in correctional centre) supporting views-Circumstances of offence not demonstrating gratuitous violence-Danger opinion involving assessment of present or future danger i.e. reason to think individual will repeat particular activities which gave rise to incarceration, or engage in other activities that would make him danger to public-Nothing in record except for speculative, unsupported opinions of case management officer who interviewed applicant once-Although only "some evidence" required to support Minister's delegate's decision, that evidence must be supported by facts-Decision rendered without regard to material before decision-maker.