Monday, August 01, 2011

MPSEP v. Nosa—detention review, JR moot

Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Nosa, 2011 FC 76 (CanLII)

Judge: Justice Martineau

Date heard: October 6, 2010

Date decided: January 21, 2011

Counsel for Nosa: Idorenyin E. Amana, Esq.

Counsel for Minister: Helen Gray

Place of Hearing: Ottawa, Ontario

The Minister applied for a judicial review of a Member of the Immigration Division’s (ID) decision to release Nosa from detention (para. 1). The Court declined to decide the decision on its merits, finding it was moot (para. 23).

Nosa arrived in Canada with another person’s passport (Mavis Idemudia), but when asked gave the name of Noah Sho-Silva, although he had no documents to confirm this identity (para. 2). He stated that he had used his genuine documents to enter the US, and had purchased false documents and entered Canada on those (para. 3). Evidence on his person did not match the refugee claim he made (para. 4).

Since Nosa’s identity was not confirmed, he was detained. This detention was upheld at a 48-hour review, and again at a 7-day review (paras. 5-7). His detention continued to be upheld on the basis that the CBSA was making reasonable efforts to confirm his identity while he was not being fully cooperative (paras. 8-10). Then in an April decision, the ID found that Nosa had recently been cooperative, whereas the CBSA had not continued making reasonable efforts. Therefore, the ID released Nosa on the basis of reporting conditions and a $3000 bond (para. 11-12).

The procedural issues raised by the Respondent were rejected by the Court (paras. 15-21).

The Court found the issue moot (para. 23). The Court noted that Nosa had been released 9 months previously, and that the Minister had not sought to stay the release (para. 26).

The evidence submitted by the Minister was about the alleged errors in the ID decision. However, the Court notes that given the language of IRPA, the issue is one of present concern with the detained person’s identity. The Minister submitted only evidence which was 9 months old (paras. 28-29). The Court further notes that there was no evidence of a continuing adversarial context, nor that judicial economy militated in favor of hearing the application (para. 33). 


No comments: