CITATION: Duplessis, Mohamoud, Murr v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 943
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NOS.: 196/12, 197/12, 198/12
20140210
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KITELEY, ASTON AND WHITAKER, JJ.
BETWEEN:
Court File No.: 196/12
ANTHONY DUPLESSIS Applicant
– and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO Respondent
Court File No.: 197/12
AHMED ABDI MOHAMOUD Applicant
- and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO Respondent
Court File No.: 198/12
RANIA EL MURR Applicant
- and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO Respondent
Hugh M. Evans, for the Applicant
Robert H. Ratcliffe, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: February 10, 2014
WHITAKER J. (orally)
[1] This matter consists of three unrelated but similar applications for judicial review. Each applicant challenges a decision made by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, concluding that each was obligated to pay debts incurred after family sponsored immigrants received social assistance.
[2] In each case, the applicants sponsored family members immigrating to Canada. In accordance with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and as part of the process, the applicants had to make an undertaking that they would provide for the financial needs of the immigrating family member and further, that if the family member received some form of social assistance, the undertaking would be deemed to have been broken and the amount received in social assistance would be repayable by the applicant. In each case the sponsored family member or members received social benefits and the undertaking was deemed to be breached.
[3] As permitted by the Act, the claims that arose against each applicant were assigned from the Government of Canada to the Province of Ontario. Each applicant, through counsel, wrote to the Ministry of Social Services asking to be relieved of the enforcement of the full amount of the debt. By letter, each applicant was told that they would remain liable for the full amount of the debt and further that the debt would not be forgiven. Each was offered a different alternative for repayment.
[4] The applicants argue that the responses received from the Ministry were boilerplate and not proper reasons at all – that they were deficient in not recording submissions, they did not address the submissions in reasons, they did not make factually and legally relevant determinations based on the arguments.
[5] The applicants say that the process was not procedurally fair and seek an order remitting the matters to the Minister for redetermination by a new decision-maker.
[6] The Ministry takes the position that there is no discretion to waive, forgive or extinguish the debt and no obligation to give reasons. The Ministry may, however, exercise a broad discretion around the terms of repayment. The Ministry submits that the procedure was procedurally fair in the context of the statutory scheme, in any event and regardless of the terms.
[7] The parties are agreed that they are governed by the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent decision in Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi, 2011 SCC 30, 2011 S.C.C. 30, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 504. Mavi dealt with similar facts in the same legislative framework.
[8] The issue here is whether there was procedural fairness. In Mavi, the Supreme Court observed that these disputes concern a matter of debt-collection and there is an obligation of procedural fairness. However, given that this is an administrative and not quasi-judicial decision-making process, the content of the duty is minimal. Further, Mavi held the obligation of fairness includes: notifying the sponsor of the debt before enforcement, affording the sponsor an opportunity to explain why there should not be immediate collection on the debt, to consider relevant circumstances and to notify the sponsor of the government’s decision. Finally, the Supreme Court expressly said that reasons were not required for these decisions.
[9] It is apparent from a review and comparison of the correspondence from the Ministry to the applicants, which provide the Ministry’s decision and response to each applicant’s claim, that each matter was addressed on its own and not in the application of “boilerplate”. In each case, references were made to information provided by the applicant and suggestions were offered as to next steps. Clearly, the applicants were advised to consider contacting the Ministry to deal with repayment. Individual circumstances were considered and the obligations identified in Mavi were complied with.
[10] In the circumstances, we find there to be no breach of procedural fairness. The Ministry’s conduct was in compliance with the direction from the Supreme Court and the statute.
[11] The applications are dismissed.
KITELEY J.
[12] I have endorsed the back of each Application Record, “This appeal is dismissed without costs for oral reasons given.”
WHITAKER J.
KITELEY J.
ASTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 10, 2014
Date of Release: February 12, 2014
CITATION: Duplessis, Mohamoud, Murr v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 943
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NOS.: 196/12, 197/12, 198/12
20140210
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KITELEY, ASTON AND WHITAKER, JJ.
BETWEEN:
Court File No.: 196/12
ANTHONY DUPLESSIS Applicant
– and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO Respondent
Court File No.: 197/12
AHMED ABDI MOHAMOUD Applicant
- and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO Respondent
Court File No.: 198/12
RANIA EL MURR Applicant
- and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
WHITAKER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 10, 2014
Date of Release: February 12, 2014