Grewal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
| Publisher | Canada: Federal Court |
| Author | Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division |
| Publication Date | 23 July 1999 |
| Type of Decision | IMM-4674-98 |
| Cite as | Grewal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), Canada: Federal Court, 23 July 1999, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,CAN_FC,43fecac82.html [accessed 19 May 2023] |
| Disclaimer | This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States. |
BETWEEN:
HARJIT SINGH GREWAL
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED J.: (revised version of reasons given orally)
| [1] It is clear that membership in an organization such as the Punjab Police force is not sufficient to find that there exist serious reasons for considering that the individual has committed crimes against humanity. That organization, as counsel states, has a wider and quite legitimate purpose - the maintaining of law and order. |
| [2] At the same time the evidence shows that some members of that organization did commit such crimes. Thus, the question becomes whether this applicant had a close enough connection to those crimes to support a finding that he was complicit therein. I note that direct participation in the crimes is not required - complicity in them (actions that support or facilitate their commission) is sufficient. |
| [3] In this regard, the decision in Randhawa v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 93 F.T.R. 151, Cardenas v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1994), 23 Imm. L.R. (2d) 244, and Sivakumar v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 433, do not contradict Ramirez v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1992] 2 F.C. 306. They expand on or elaborate on that decision, explaining the law I have set out above. The Board then did not err in referring only to the Ramirez case. |
| [4] The question becomes whether the applicant"s activities with the Punjab Police, while not constituting direct participation in the acts of torture and human rights abuses were such as to support a finding of complicity in such acts. |
| [5] It is only necessary to refer to three portions of the evidence. At page 127 of the transcript the following is found: |
| Q. Now, during these two years [1985-1987], how often or how many times did you observe someone being tortured? |
| A. Many times I saw that. |
At page 148:
| Q... You have never arrested a single person [Sikh militants and suspected Sikh militants] in any of the raids that you have participated [in] over the years you have been with the police? |
| A - Just my assistants, they have many times had instances where they got some people and arrested them. |
...
| Q... how would you treat the families of the people who were not there, the family members? How would you treat them. |
| A. This portion of the treatment of the member of that particular person"s members of the family, was up to the in-charge. They were the ones who were torturing them... |
At page 168:
| Q. Now, you also say in your Personal Information Form ... once you were promoted to Head Constable you did not wish to participate in any tortures ... You politely told SHO Prakash that it was not in your job description to do such things. And you told him that he ought to use junior constables for this job as your health would not withstand the the rigor [sic]. |
| .... |
| A. At the time he was asking me to torture or asking me to join with him in torture ... in 1995 ... |
| [6] The Board"s decision that there are "serious reasons for considering that the claimant was complicit in crimes against humanity committed by the Punjab police force" is well founded by the evidence. I can not find that the decision was unreasonable, or in the words of paragraph 18.1(4)(d) was based on an "erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it." |
"B. Reed"
JUDGE
TORONTO, ONTARIO
July 23, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-4674-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: HARJIT SINGH GREWAL |
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, JULY 22, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: REED J.
DATED: FRIDAY, JULY 23, 1999
APPEARANCES: Ms. Preevanda K. Sapru
For the Applicant
Mr. Martin E. Anderson
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Max Berger & Associates
| Barristers & Solicitors |
| 1033 Bay Street |
Suite 207
| Toronto, Ontario |
| M5S 3A5 |
For the Applicant
| Morris Rosenberg |
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19990723
Docket: IMM-4674-98
Between:
| HARJIT SINGH GREWAL |
Applicant
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
