TRACY ANN SIMONE COLEMAN Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP, 2022 FC 481

Date: 20220406 Docket: IMM-1937-21 Citation: 2022 FC 481 St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, April 6, 2022 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan BETWEEN:TRACY ANN SIMONE COLEMANApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent REASONS AND JUDGMENT [1] Ms. Tracy Ann Simone Coleman (the "“Applicant”") seeks judicial review of a decision made by an Officer (the "“Officer”") onMarch 8, 2021.

In that decision, the Officer refused an application for a work permit and an application for a Temporary Resident Permit("“TRP”") under the Family Violence Initiative (the "“FMV”"). [2] The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (the "“Respondent”") had granted the Applicant a TRP under the FMV on February 17,2020, with effect until February 15, 2021.

On the same day, a work permit was issued to the Applicant, also due to expire on February15, 2021. [3] By letter dated February 5, 2021, written by Counsel on her behalf, the Applicant requested a new TRP and an extension of her workpermit; see pages 57 and 59 of the Certified Tribunal Record (the "“CTR”").

The letter of February 5, 2021 referred to the prior issuanceof a TRP under the FMV and to the issuance of a work permit. [4] The refusal decision of March 8, 2021 refers specifically to a "“request”" for a TRP under the FMV and to a "“request”" for a workpermit. [5] Both parties submit that the decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court ofCanada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v.

Vavilov (2019), 2019 SCC 65 , 441 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (S.C.C.). [6] In considering reasonableness, the Court is to ask if the decision under review "“bears the hallmarks of reasonableness – justification,transparency and intelligibility – and whether it is justified in relation to the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on thatdecision”"; see Vavilov, supra at paragraph 99. [7] In my opinion, the decision does not meet the legal test since it appears that the Officer misunderstood the nature of the Applicant’srequest.

Focusing on something that was not requested cannot lead to a reasonable decision. [8] In the result, the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Officer is set aside and the matter is remitted toanother Officer for determination. There is no question for certification proposed. JUDGMENT in IMM-1937-21 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is allowed, the decision is set aside and the matter is remittedto another Officer for determination. There is no question for certification. “E. Heneghan” Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-1937-21

STYLE OF CAUSE: TRACY ANN SIMONE COLEMAN v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: HELD BY WAY OF VIDEOCONFERENCE BETWEEN TORONTO, ONTARIO AND ST. JOHN’S, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 16, 2022 REASONS AND JUDGMENT: HENEGHAN J. DATED: APRIL 6, 2022 APPEARANCES : Wennie Lee FOR THE APPLICANT Prathima Prashad FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Lee & Company Immigration Advocacy, Counsel & Litigation Barrister & Solicitor Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT