Thompson v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-107-96
Gibson J.
16/8/96
15 pp.
Application to review decision respondent, Jamaican granted landed immigrant status with two children in Canada, danger to public in Canada (convicted of having sex with person under age of fourteen)-Deportation order issued in January 1996 and applicant subsequently removed to Jamaica-Application allowed-Standard of review: Nguyen v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] 1 F.C. 696 (C.A.) not intended to limit jurisdiction of Court to review opinion, but was confirmation of constitutionality of legislative scheme without formal guidelines for respondent to consider-Case also endorsement of discretionary nature of such opinion-Considering discretionary nature of decision under review, applicant must show decision-maker erred in law, proceeded on some wrong or improper principle or acted in bad faith: Shah v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 170 N.R. 238 (F.C.A.)-Burden on applicant heavy one-As to meaning of "danger to the public", in order for respondent to form opinion pursuant to s. 70(5), fact of conviction alone insufficient basis; circumstances of case must, over and above conviction, indicate danger to public-There must be "present or future danger" to public: Bahadori v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 95 F.T.R. 75 (F.C.T.D.)-On facts herein, respondent erred in law in finding applicant constituted danger to public in Canada as no evidence applicant posed "present or future danger" to public in Canada-Question certified: does phrase "danger to the public in Canada", as it appears in Immigration Act, s. 70(5), imply a concept of "present or future danger" that must be satisfied?-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 70(5) (as enacted by S.C. 1995, c. 15, s. 13).