- 注册
- 2002-10-07
- 消息
- 402,186
- 荣誉分数
- 76
- 声望点数
- 0
A single Ottawa mother wants compensation and an apology after a member of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada insisted her five-year-old triplets couldn’t be present during her testimony at a hearing in Montreal last month.
Margaret Nakibuuka said she was shocked at the ruling from presiding member Maude Côté that the children might be a distraction during the proceedings, aimed at determining whether the family can be granted refugee protection, a stepping stone to permanent residency in Canada.
“I told counsel that it was important for the adult claimant to be able to concentrate, first of all, not be distracted by the children while she testifies,” Côté can be heard saying in an audio recording of the hearing sought by Nakibuuka’s lawyer, Rezaur Rahman.
“And I also want her testimony to remain confidential and not be heard by the children. I want her to be comfortable to express herself and I don’t want the children to hear what she will testify on.”
Eventually, the hearing was postponed.
According to Nakibuuka and her lawyer, the children had been sitting quietly during the hearing and, on the recording, they make no sound. She denied their presence was a distraction, arguing the contrary.
“Actually, do you know what would have been more of a distraction? Me leaving my kids somewhere in the middle of nowhere. Every mother wants to know that their kids are safe. When they’re next to you, you know they’re safe.”
Rahman, meanwhile, pointed out that the board itself had asked that the three children be present, as they are claiming refugee status, too, and their mother is their “designated representative” under the board’s rules for minors.
He also protested he wasn’t given a chance to mount a counter-argument to the exclusion, nor was he clear on what procedural rule Côté was relying upon to bar the children.
“I control the hearing room,” she can be heard saying, repeating that she would not change her mind, despite Rahman’s assurances the presence of the children was not a problem. At one point, Côté raised the possibility of leaving the children in Ottawa for the day.
“I tried to explain to her that even if you put the hearing forward, my situation is not going to change,” said Nakibuuka. “I have no one to leave my kids with.”
Things got a little testy when Rahman accused Côté of being biased while issuing “irrational” orders to him and his client. The hearing, which officially lasted under 15 minutes, adjourned without another date being set.
Nakibuuka and the children, Lexie, Ryan and Mia, arrived in Canada a year ago, fleeing what she calls an abusive domestic situation in Uganda and what she describes as unwanted tribal practices to be forced on her and the children.
She said they arrived on Christmas Day in 2016 and they’ve been living in an apartment-hotel for months. The children are in school and Nakibuuka says she has no other caregiver, certainly none in Montreal where she could have left the children. So that morning, they rose at 5 a.m., hired a car, and drove to Montreal, arriving only minutes before the 9 a.m. hearing.
She said she inquired about private daycare but couldn’t find one that opened early enough. “Who is going to take in triplets at five o’clock in the morning?”
She has complained in writing to the board, asking for four steps: an “immediate” inquiry into the conduct of Côté; a letter of apology to her and the children; a new board member to hear her case; reimbursement for the $300 expense incurred in having four people travel to Montreal for a hearing that was unreasonably postponed.
“My client believes that the public should know how unjustly she and her minor children were treated by the Board Member,” Rahman wrote in his written complaint.
“I was in shock,” said Nakibuuka. “I’ve only ever had a good welcome from Canadians. The kids just sat there and froze.” She said they were all upset and, after the hearing, one child tearfully asked if they were being sent back to Africa.
Rahman, meanwhile, is still trying to understand the board’s position. He said the written “notice to appear” sent to his client on Oct. 24 made it clear the children had to be present at the Nov. 1 hearing.
Citing privacy, the board has declined to comment on the specifics of the case. However, in an effort to be more accommodating to families, it says, it instituted a new policy in September that does not require the attendance of children under 12 when their adult guardian is making a refugee claim, unless the presiding member requires them.
“Refugee claimants are notified of their hearing date several weeks in advance,” the board said in a written response.
“With respect to whether or not minors should be present in the hearing room during a refugee claim, the presiding member (decision maker) assesses the situation on a case-by-case basis and decides what is appropriate in the circumstances.”
The board has had 150 refugee protection claims from Ugandans in the first nine months of 2017 and 61 were accepted.
To contact Kelly Egan, please call 613-726-5896 or email kegan@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/kellyegancolumn
查看原文...
Margaret Nakibuuka said she was shocked at the ruling from presiding member Maude Côté that the children might be a distraction during the proceedings, aimed at determining whether the family can be granted refugee protection, a stepping stone to permanent residency in Canada.
“I told counsel that it was important for the adult claimant to be able to concentrate, first of all, not be distracted by the children while she testifies,” Côté can be heard saying in an audio recording of the hearing sought by Nakibuuka’s lawyer, Rezaur Rahman.
“And I also want her testimony to remain confidential and not be heard by the children. I want her to be comfortable to express herself and I don’t want the children to hear what she will testify on.”
Eventually, the hearing was postponed.
According to Nakibuuka and her lawyer, the children had been sitting quietly during the hearing and, on the recording, they make no sound. She denied their presence was a distraction, arguing the contrary.
“Actually, do you know what would have been more of a distraction? Me leaving my kids somewhere in the middle of nowhere. Every mother wants to know that their kids are safe. When they’re next to you, you know they’re safe.”
Rahman, meanwhile, pointed out that the board itself had asked that the three children be present, as they are claiming refugee status, too, and their mother is their “designated representative” under the board’s rules for minors.
He also protested he wasn’t given a chance to mount a counter-argument to the exclusion, nor was he clear on what procedural rule Côté was relying upon to bar the children.
“I control the hearing room,” she can be heard saying, repeating that she would not change her mind, despite Rahman’s assurances the presence of the children was not a problem. At one point, Côté raised the possibility of leaving the children in Ottawa for the day.
“I tried to explain to her that even if you put the hearing forward, my situation is not going to change,” said Nakibuuka. “I have no one to leave my kids with.”
Things got a little testy when Rahman accused Côté of being biased while issuing “irrational” orders to him and his client. The hearing, which officially lasted under 15 minutes, adjourned without another date being set.
Nakibuuka and the children, Lexie, Ryan and Mia, arrived in Canada a year ago, fleeing what she calls an abusive domestic situation in Uganda and what she describes as unwanted tribal practices to be forced on her and the children.
She said they arrived on Christmas Day in 2016 and they’ve been living in an apartment-hotel for months. The children are in school and Nakibuuka says she has no other caregiver, certainly none in Montreal where she could have left the children. So that morning, they rose at 5 a.m., hired a car, and drove to Montreal, arriving only minutes before the 9 a.m. hearing.
She said she inquired about private daycare but couldn’t find one that opened early enough. “Who is going to take in triplets at five o’clock in the morning?”
She has complained in writing to the board, asking for four steps: an “immediate” inquiry into the conduct of Côté; a letter of apology to her and the children; a new board member to hear her case; reimbursement for the $300 expense incurred in having four people travel to Montreal for a hearing that was unreasonably postponed.
“My client believes that the public should know how unjustly she and her minor children were treated by the Board Member,” Rahman wrote in his written complaint.
“I was in shock,” said Nakibuuka. “I’ve only ever had a good welcome from Canadians. The kids just sat there and froze.” She said they were all upset and, after the hearing, one child tearfully asked if they were being sent back to Africa.
Rahman, meanwhile, is still trying to understand the board’s position. He said the written “notice to appear” sent to his client on Oct. 24 made it clear the children had to be present at the Nov. 1 hearing.
Citing privacy, the board has declined to comment on the specifics of the case. However, in an effort to be more accommodating to families, it says, it instituted a new policy in September that does not require the attendance of children under 12 when their adult guardian is making a refugee claim, unless the presiding member requires them.
“Refugee claimants are notified of their hearing date several weeks in advance,” the board said in a written response.
“With respect to whether or not minors should be present in the hearing room during a refugee claim, the presiding member (decision maker) assesses the situation on a case-by-case basis and decides what is appropriate in the circumstances.”
The board has had 150 refugee protection claims from Ugandans in the first nine months of 2017 and 61 were accepted.
To contact Kelly Egan, please call 613-726-5896 or email kegan@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/kellyegancolumn
查看原文...
