Salehian v MCI 2008 FC 547 Danger opinon failure to consider rehab plan and evidence of risk

The Court set aside a decision that the applicant was a danger to the public. The court noted that the delegate erred in its assessment of the rehabilitation plan because the applicant was under an obligation to participate in it, Moreover the Minister failed to consider evidence of risk of torture on return.: [26] There were two specific pieces of evidence as to the Applicant’s risk, that of the journalist and of the publisher, yet no mention is made of that evidence. While it is trite law that a decision maker does not have to mention every piece of evidence considered, the more important the evidence, the more that evidence addresses the issue on which the decision maker disagrees, the greater the necessity to explain the reason for rejecting that evidence. [27] As stated earlier, the results of the Danger Opinion is to strip the Applicant of the protection of Convention refugee status and subject him to refoulement to torture. Given this fact, it was incumbent on the Minister’s Delegate to address evidence which is weighty, current and goes to the very root of the decision.