Cruz v MCI 2008 FC 1341 Dnager Opinion set aside failure to consider rehabilitation

The Court set aside a danger opinion holding that the tribunal made serious errors in its assessment of the evidence of rehabilitation:[10] There are other problems with the delegate’s decision. In concluding that the Applicant “could re-offend and traffic in a drug”, the Minister’s delegate makes no reference to much of the evidence that supports his claim of rehabilitation. For example, the Applicant was out on bail, in the community, and crime free for 18 months, prior to his conviction. The “Criminal Profile Report”, prepared for his intake into incarceration, makes reference to the low likelihood that he would re-offend. He was given early release from custody, partly on the basis of a low risk of re-offending. [11] Finally, it also appears that the Minister’s delegate relied on her conclusion that the Applicant was “submerged with associates in the drug trade” to support her overall finding that the Applicant was likely to re-engage in drug-related crimes. In my view, the finding that the Applicant was “submerged” in the drug trade is capricious or made without regard to the evidence. While the Applicant may have, at the time of his crime, associated with participants in the drug trade and had used cocaine, there was no evidence that he was ever “submerged” in this world of crime. In any event, there is even less evidence that would lead the delegate to conclude that, subsequent to his incarceration, he had continued these associations.