2015 FC 1186, 2015 FC 1186

[2016] 2 F.C.R. 378 IMM-1376-14 2015 FC 1186 N.O. (Applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Respondent) Indexed as: N.O. v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Federal Court, Heneghan J.—Toronto, March 19 and October 29, 2015.

Citizenship and Immigration — Status in Canada — Convention Refugees and Persons in Need of Protection — Judicial review ofImmigration and Refugee Board, Refugee Protection Division (RPD) decision refusing to reconsider application to reopen refugee claim— Applicant’s claim for refugee protection denied by RPD — Judicial review thereof dismissed by Federal Court — RPD concludinglacking jurisdiction to reopen claim pursuant to Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s. 170.2 — Applicant raising constitutionalquestion on application for reconsideration — RPD concluding not having jurisdiction to reopen claim in light of clear language of s.170.2, finding Federal Court made final decision — Main issue proper

interpretation of s. 170.2 — RPD not committing reviewableerror — RPD having no authority to reopen claim once “final determination” made — Words “including a failure to observe a principleof natural justice” emphasizing Parliament’s intention to preclude, foreclose reopening of claim when “final determination” made —“Final determination” made of applicant’s refugee claim when judicial review application dismissed, no question certified — RPD nothaving jurisdiction to consider any issue of law, constitutionality herein because final decision made — Questions certified —Application dismissed.

This was an application for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and RefugeeBoard of Canada refusing to reconsider an application to reopen a refugee claim. The applicant’s claim for refugee protection was denied by the RPD for lack of credible evidence. The applicant’s application forjudicial review was dismissed by the Federal Court. The applicant then sought to reopen her refugee claim pursuant to

section 62 of theRefugee Protection Division Rules (Rules). The RPD dismissed that application on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to reopen theclaim pursuant to

section 170.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The applicant presented an application forreconsideration, wherein she raised a constitutional question pursuant to

section 66 of the Rules as to the constitutionality of section170.2, referring to

section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The RPD concluded that it did not have jurisdiction toreopen the claim in light of the clear language of

section 170.2. It found that the Federal Court had made a “final decision”. The main issue was the proper

interpretation of

section 170.2 of the Act. Held, the application should be dismissed. The RPD did not commit a reviewable error in its decision. The RPD has no authority to reopen a claim once a “final determination” hasbeen made by the Refugee Appeal Division or the Federal Court, pursuant to

section 170.2. The words “including a failure to observe aprinciple of natural justice” in that provision emphasize Parliament’s intention to preclude and foreclose any reopening of a claim forrefugee protection or a claim for protection, pursuant to

section 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Act, when a “final determination” hasbeen made. A “final determination” was made of the applicant’s refugee claim and claim for protection pursuant to subsection 97(1) ofthe Act, when the judicial review application was dismissed, because no question was certified. Finally, the RPD did not have thejurisdiction to consider any issue of law, including issues of constitutionality, because a “final decision” had been made pursuant tosection 170.2. Questions were certified as to whether

section 170.2 withdraws jurisdiction from the RPD to decide questions of law andconstitutionality arising under that provision, and whether

section 170.2 breaches a claimant’s rights under

section 7 of the Charter suchthat it must be found unconstitutional and declared to be of no force and effect. STATUTES AND REGULATIONS CITED Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being

Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982,

Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.)[R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 7. Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7. Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, ss. 74(d), 96, 97(1), 162(1), 170.2. Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256, ss. 62, 66. CASES CITED APPLIED: Stables v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1319, [2013] 3 F.C.R. 240; Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, (1998), 36 O.R. (3d) 418; Blackmore v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 1299, 99 B.C.L.R.(4th) 292; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Zazai, 2004 FCA 89, (2004), 36 Imm. L.R. (3d) 167.

CONSIDERED: Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331; Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), (SCC),[1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086, (1990), 73 D.L.R. (4th) 686. REFERRED TO: Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Laseur, 2003 SCC 54, [2003] 2S.C.R. 504; R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765; Schacter v. Canada, (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679, (1992),93 D.L.R. (4th) 1; Kaur v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (FCA), [1990] 2 F.C. 209, (1989), 64D.L.R. (4th) 317 (C.A.); Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v.

Kandola, 2014 FCA 85, [2015] 1 F.C.R. 549. APPLICATION for judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canadarefusing to reconsider an application to reopen a refugee claim. Application dismissed. APPEARANCES Prasanna Balasundaram for applicant. Ada Mok and Nicole Rahaman for respondent. SOLICITORS OF RECORD Downtown Legal Services, Toronto, for applicant.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada for respondent. (Confidential Judgment and Reasons were issued on October 20, 2015) The following are the public amended reasons for judgment and judgment rendered in English by [1] Heneghan J.: Ms. N.O. (the applicant) seeks judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Protection Division (the RPD) ofthe Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (the Board), refusing to reconsider an application to reopen a refugee claim. Theapplicant also submits a notice of constitutional question pursuant to the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c.

F-7. [2] At the hearing of this application for judicial review, the applicant asked that she be referred to only by her initials. That requestwas granted. [3] The applicant is a citizen of Haiti. She entered Canada at Fort Erie, on March 19, 2009 and claimed refugee protection on April1, 2009.

Her claim was joined with those of her older brother, N.A. and her older sister E.A. whose claims were filed the previous year. [4] The claim of the applicant and her siblings was denied by the Board in a written decision dated October 6, 2010 [X (Re), ], on the grounds that their evidence was not credible, that they had failed to establish a subjective basis for their claim andthat they did not face a personalized risk of torture or to their lives or cruel and unusual punishment if they return to Haiti. [5] An application for leave for judicial review was granted and the application for judicial review was heard by Justice Snider.

In adecision dated May 9, 2011, the application for judicial review was dismissed, on the grounds that the credibility findings of the Boardwere determinative and that those findings were reasonable. No question was certified. [6] By an application dated August 16, 2013, the applicant sought to reopen her refugee claim, pursuant to

section 62 of the RefugeeProtection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256. She alleged that she had been coerced by her brother and sister to make her evidence conformwith theirs, as to the grounds upon which she feared to return to Haiti. In a lengthy affidavit filed with her application to reopen, theapplicant deposed that she had been sexually abused as a child and during her teens by her stepfather, and that her mother was aware ofthe abuse.

She deposed that she was discouraged by her siblings from testifying before the Board about this abuse. [7] The applicant, in her affidavit dated August 15, 2013, also deposed that she was unaware that her brother and sister had appliedfor leave and judicial review of the Board’s negative decision until Justice Snider delivered her decision in May 2011. [8] Following the birth of her child in Canada, on February 21, 2013, the applicant sought therapy for help in dealing with thehistory of abuse and its impacts on her life.

A social worker facilitated contact with a lawyer who advised the applicant “it might bepossible to start again”. [9] The applicant further deposed that she was motivated to regularize her life in Canada where she is living in a stable relationship.She wishes to raise her child well and wants the opportunity to have her claim for protection, as a Convention refugee or a person in needof protection, decided on the basis of her personal experiences. [10] The applicant submitted her application to reopen her Convention refugee claim on or about August 16, 2013.

In a decision datedAugust 27, 2013, the RPD dismissed that application, on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to reopen the claim, pursuant to section170.2 of the Act [Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27]. [11] Upon receipt of the decision of August 27, 2013, the applicant presented an application for reconsideration under cover of a letterdated September 10, 2013. At this time, the applicant raised a constitutional question, pursuant to

section 66 of the Refugee ProtectionDivision Rules as to the constitutionality of

section 170.2, referring to

section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, beingPart I of the Constitution Act, 1982,

Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44] (the Charter).

[12] The RPD delivered its decision on the application for reconsideration, by written reasons dated February 7, 2014. [13] In that decision, the RPD reviewed the facts and the arguments of both the applicant and of the Minister of Citizenship andImmigration (the respondent). It first found that it had jurisdiction to consider the constitutional question, pursuant to subsection 162(1)of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act) and the decision in Nova Scotia (Workers’ CompensationBoard) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v.

Laseur, 2003 SCC 54, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504 and R. v. Conway, 2010SCC 22, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 765. [14] The RPD also referred to the decision in Stables v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1319, [2013] 3 F.C.R. 240and concluded that on the basis of these three decisions it did not have jurisdiction to reopen the claim, in light of the clear language ofsection 170.2 of the Act. The RPD said the following at paragraph 25 of its decision: I find that based on the Conway, Martin and Stables decisions that the RPD does not have jurisdiction to consider the re-opening of thecase at bar as stated in

section 170.2 because the

section is clear: “the RPD does not have jurisdiction to re-open on any ground –including a failure to observe a principle of natural justice – a claim for refugee protection, in respect of which the RAD or the FederalCourt has made a final determination”. [15] The RPD observed that

section 170.2 of the Act came into effect after the decisions in Conway and Stables. It concluded thatParliament intended to remove from the RPD the jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of

section 170.2 in the circumstancesdescribed in that provision. It found that the Federal Court had made a “final decision” on May 9, 2011. [16] In the within application for judicial review, the applicant seeks the following relief: 1. A declaration that the RPD has the jurisdiction to consider the August 12, 2013 Application to Reopen and that the matter be remittedto the RPD for determination with a direction to that effect. 2.

In the alternative, a declaration that the operation of s. 107.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA [sic] barring theApplicant’s Application to Reopen violates the Applicant’s right to life, liberty and security of the person as guaranteed by s.7 of theCharter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter).

Pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act, s. 170.2 is of no force and effect to the extent that itcontravenes the Applicant’s rights. [17] The applicant now argues that the RPD erred in law in its conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to reopen her claim and that thisCourt should grant the relief sought, either by finding

section 170.2 to be unconstitutional in light of

section 7 of the Charter, or “read in”the requirement that

section 170.2 be interpreted in a manner that it would only operate to remove jurisdiction on an issue or issues thathave already been determined by the Federal Court or the Refugee Appeal Division, in accordance with the decision in Schacter v.Canada, (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679. [18] Finally, the last remedy proposed by the applicant is that the Court grant a constitutional exemption in her favour so that herclaim could be reopened. The applicant here relies on the decision in Kaur v.

Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (FCA), [1990] 2 F.C. 209 (C.A.). [19] The respondent submits that this application should be dismissed. He argues that the RPD was principally engaged in a factualdetermination, whether a “final decision” had been made by the Federal Court. He argues that the RPD had no jurisdiction to considerreopening the applicant’s claim and consequently, no jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of

section 170.2 [of the Act] and aninquiry into a breach of

section 7 [of the Charter]. [20] As well, the respondent submits that fundamental justice does not require that the claim be reopened and in any event, that theapplicant has not established a factual foundation to justify reopening her refugee claim. Any risks to her can be assessed in a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application. [21] The principal issue raised in this application is a question of statutory

interpretation. That issue involves a question of law and isreviewable on the standard of correctness; see the decision in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Kandola, 2014 FCA 85, [2015] 1F.C.R. 549. [22] The applicant made her initial request for reopening pursuant to

section 62 of the Refugee Protection Division Rules, SOR/2012-256.

Section 62 provides as follows: Application to reopen claim 62

(1) At any time before the Refugee Appeal Division or the Federal Court has made a final determination in respect of a claim forrefugee protection that has been decided or declared abandoned, the claimant or the Minister may make an application to the Division toreopen the claim. [23] The Board dismissed the original request on the basis of its

interpretation of

section 170.2 which provides as follows: No reopening of claim or application 170.2 The Refugee Protection Division does not have jurisdiction to reopen on any ground — including a failure to observe a principle ofnatural justice — a claim for refugee protection, an application for protection or an application for cessation or vacation, in respect ofwhich the Refugee Appeal Division or the Federal Court, as the case may be, has made a final determination. [24] The first issue arising in this application for judicial review is the meaning of

section 170.2. According to the decision in Rizzo &Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at paragraph 21, the approach to statutory

interpretation requires apurposive approach:

Although much has been written about the

interpretation of legislation … Elmer Driedger in Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983) bestencapsulates the approach upon which I prefer to rely. He recognizes that statutory

interpretation cannot be founded on the wording ofthe legislation alone. At p. 87 he states: Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of

an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammaticaland ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament. [25] Applying this principle of statutory

interpretation, I interpret

section 170.2 to mean that the RPD has no authority to reopen aclaim, as identified in that provision, once a “final determination” has been made by the Refugee Appeal Division or the Federal Court,as the case may be. [26] The language of

section 170.2 is clear and specific. The words “on any ground” are broad but it is noteworthy that Parliamentadded the words “including a failure to observe a principle of natural justice”. In my opinion, the inclusion of these words serves toemphasize Parliament’s intention to preclude and foreclose any reopening of a claim for refugee protection or a claim for protection,pursuant to

section 96 and subsection 97(1), respectively, of the Act, when a “final determination” has been made by either the RefugeeAppeal Division or the Federal Court. [27] On the basis of the evidence before the RPD upon the reconsideration request, there had been a “final determination” of theapplicant’s claims to be recognized as a Convention refugee or as a person in need of protection. [28] I refer to the decision in Blackmore v.

British Columbia (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 1299, 99 B.C.L.R. (4th) 292, where theCourt said the following at paragraph 50: The grammatical and ordinary meaning of the word “final” is “ultimate … not to be undone, altered or revoked …. [and] conclusive”:Simpson and Weiner, The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., Volume V (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989) at pp. 191 to 192. [29] Following this approach, I have no hesitation in finding that a “final determination” has been made of the applicant’s refugeeclaim and claim for protection pursuant to subsection 97(1) of the Act, when the judicial review application was dismissed on May 9,2011, because no question was certified. [30] Pursuant to paragraph 74(

d) of the Act, an appeal from a disposition of an immigration judicial review proceeding is onlyavailable when a serious question of general importance has been certified. Paragraph 74(

d) provides as follows: Judicial review 74 Judicial review is subject to the following provisions: … (

d) subject to

section 87.01, an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal may be made only if, in rendering judgment, the judge certifies thata serious question of general importance is involved and states the question. [31] The next question arising from this application for judicial review is whether the RPD is authorized to consider a challenge tolegislation on constitutional grounds. The foundation of the constitutional challenge in this case is

section 7 of the Charter whichprovides as follows: Life, liberty and security of person 7 Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with theprinciples of fundamental justice. [32] The RPD possesses jurisdiction to decide questions of law pursuant to subsection 162(1) of the Act which provides as follows: Sole and exclusive jurisdiction 162

(1) Each Division of the Board has, in respect of proceedings brought before it under this Act, sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hearand determine all questions of law and fact, including questions of jurisdiction. [33] According to the decision in Stables, above, the RPD, like other administrative tribunals, has the authority to decideconstitutional questions, unless the relevant legislation indicates otherwise; see Stables, above, at paragraph 28 as follows: As a result of the Cuddy Chicks trilogy (the two other cases of that trilogy being Douglas/Kwantlen Faculty Assn v.

Douglas College, (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 570 and Tetreault-Gadoury v. Canada (Employment and Immigration Commission), (SCC), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22) and further jurisprudential evolution (extensively summed up in R. v. Conway, 2010 SCC 22,[2010] 1 S.C.R. 765), there is no doubt that administrative tribunals with the powers to decide questions of law have the authority toresolve constitutional questions that are inextricably linked to matters properly before them, unless such questions have been explicitlywithdrawn from their jurisdiction. [34]

Section 170.2, in my opinion, meets the test set out above. The language of this provision removes the jurisdiction to reopen onany ground, when a “final decision” has been made. In my opinion, this means that the RPD did not have the jurisdiction to consider anyissue of law, including issues of constitutionality. [35] As noted above, I have found that a “final determination” had been made when the judicial review of the Board’s decision,rejecting the applicant’s claim, was dismissed in May 2011.

[36] The applicant argues that her Charter right to fundamental justice has been breached as a consequence of the refusal of the RPDto reopen her claim. In Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 331, the Court described the elements offundamental justice as follows [at paragraphs 54, 55 and 72]:

Section 7 of the Charter states that “[e]veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprivedthereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” In order to demonstrate a violation of s. 7, the claimants must first show that the law interferes with, or deprives them of, their life, libertyor security of the person. Once they have established that s. 7 is engaged, they must then show that the deprivation in question is not inaccordance with the principles of fundamental justice. …

Section 7 does not catalogue the principles of fundamental justice to which it refers. Over the course of 32 years of Charter adjudication,this Court has worked to define the minimum constitutional requirements that a law that trenches on life, liberty or security of the personmust meet (Bedford, at para. 94).

While the Court has recognized a number of principles of fundamental justice, three have emerged ascentral in the recent s. 7 jurisprudence: laws that impinge on life, liberty or security of the person must not be arbitrary, overbroad, orhave consequences that are grossly disproportionate to their object. [37] The facts set out by the applicant, in her affidavit submitted to the RPD upon her reconsideration request, provide that she did nottestify about the extent of sexual abuse that she suffered from her stepfather, because she felt persuaded by her siblings not to do so. [38] I agree with the respondent that the PRRA process will provide an adequate opportunity for the applicant to submit her evidenceabout risk if she is subject to removal from Canada. [39] The facts set out by the applicant in her affidavit filed in support of this application for judicial review show that both her motherand stepfather are now dead. [40] Furthermore, I agree with the respondent that the applicant has not provided a factual foundation for the determination of aconstitutional question.

I refer to the decision in Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General), (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1086where the Supreme Court of Canada said the following at pages 1099 and 1100: This Court has been vigilant to ensure that a proper factual foundation exists before measuring legislation against the provisions of theCharter …. … … this Court heard and decided MacKay v. Manitoba, (SCC), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357, a case concerning an action for adeclaration that certain provisions of The Elections Finances Act, S.M. 1982-83-84, c. 45, violated the guarantee of freedom ofexpression contained in s. 2(

b) of the Charter. Cory J., speaking for a unanimous Court, stated, at pp. 361-62: Charter decisions should not and must not be made in a factual vacuum. To attempt to do so would trivialize the Charter and inevitablyresult in ill-considered opinions. The presentation of facts is not, as stated by the respondent, a mere technicality; rather, it is essential toa proper consideration of Charter issues …. Charter decisions cannot be based on the unsupported hypotheses of enthusiastic counsel. [41] I am not persuaded that the RPD committed a reviewable error in its decision, refusing to reconsider its earlier decision not toreopen the applicant’s claim. In my opinion, the language of

section 170.2 of the Act is clear. The fact is that a “final decision” had beenmade upon the applicant’s claim for protection when the Federal Court dismissed the application for leave and judicial review, withoutcertifying a question pursuant to paragraph 74(

d) of the Act. The absence of a certified question means that no appeal was available tothe applicant. [42] In the result, this application for judicial review is dismissed. [43] Both parties proposed questions for certification. The applicant proposes the following questions: 1. Does the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provide jurisdiction to the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration andRefugee Board to determine the constitutionality of s. 170.2? 2. Does the operation of s. 170.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to bar an application to reopen at the Refugee ProtectionDivision violate the Applicant’s

section 7 rights when that application is based on grounds not before Federal Court and thus was notsubject to a final determination? [44] The respondent proposed slightly different questions as follows:

(1) Does

section 170.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, where it states, “The Refugee Protection Division does not havejurisdiction to reopen on any ground — including a failure to observe a principle of natural justice — a claim for refugee protection … inrespect of which the Refugee Appeal Division or the Federal Court … has made a final determination”, withdraw jurisdiction from theRefugee Protection Division to decision questions of law and, by implication, constitutionality, arising under that provision?

(2) In spite of the availability of other possible applications under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, does

section 170.2 of theImmigration and Refugee Protection Act unjustifiably breach a claimant’s rights under

section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedomssuch that the provision must be found unconstitutional and declared to be of no force and effect? [45] I am satisfied that the respondent’s questions meet the test for certification as set out in the decision Canada (Minister ofCitizenship and Immigration) v. Zazai, 2004 FCA 89, (2004), 36 Imm. L.R. (3d) 167 [at paragraph 11], that is “a serious question of

general importance which would be dispositive of an appeal”. [ 46 ] Accordingly, the following questions will be certified:

(1) Does

section 170.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , where it states, “The Refugee Protection Division does not have jurisdiction to reopen on any ground ― including a failure to observe a principle of natural justice ― a claim for refugee protection … in respect of which the Refugee Appeal Division or the Federal Court … has made a final determination”, withdraw jurisdiction from the Refugee Protection Division to decide questions of law and, by implication, constitutionality, arising under that provision?

(2) In spite of the availability of other possible applications under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , does

section 170.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act unjustifiably breach a claimant’s rights under

section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms such that the provision must be found unconstitutional and declared to be of no force and effect? [ 47 ] Otherwise, the application for judicial review is dismissed. JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that this application for judicial review is dismissed and the following questions are certified:

(1) Does

section 170.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , where it states, “The Refugee Protection Division does not have jurisdiction to reopen on any ground ― including a failure to observe a principle of natural justice ― a claim for refugee protection … in respect of which the Refugee Appeal Division or the Federal Court … has made a final determination”, withdraw jurisdiction from the Refugee Protection Division to decide questions of law and, by implication, constitutionality, arising under that provision?

(2) In spite of the availability of other possible applications under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Ac t, does

section 170.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act unjustifiably breach a claimant’s rights under

section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms such that the provision must be found unconstitutional and declared to be of no force and effect?