Date: 20001006
Docket: IMM-4693-99
BETWEEN: DONGSHENG HU,
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
MULDOON, J.
[1] Despite the Court's rather comprehensive reasons and order dated May 18, 2000, the applicant seeks a reconsideration of the matter and reversal of the conclusions earlier expressed. The applicant's ("applicants' ") substantive application was originally dismissed because of lack of response to a 180-day notice of status review.
[2] It would be worthwhile repeating here some of the reasons dated May 18, 200, thus:
| [1] ... In a letter to the Court's administrator dated May 12, the applicant's solicitor relates that she herself suffers from a chronic illness which was exacerbated by the effects of a motor vehicle accident in which she was involved on September 23, 1999. Because a solicitor avers these matters the Court ought to be inclined to accept them as true. There are many medical details expressed in the solicitor's letter which would be strengthened by the corroborative support of a physician's certificate or letter. |
| [2] The solicitor avers that she believed that she had secured the aid of another solicitor, Ali Yusef, Esquire, but this worthy, about one month later allegedly begged off citing pressure of work. There are serious gaps in the solicitor's account of what went wrong, but they cannot be laid to the applicant's blame, and, in justice he ought not to have to suffer for them. |
| [3] There is yet another matter. In the solicitor's letter of May 12, 2000, she states: |
| It is submitted that the applicant has a very strong case on the face of the record, and that no prejudice will be caused to the respondent by allowing the applicant's action to remain alive. |
| The applicant "has a very strong case on the face of the record" ? The "record" filed in the matter consists mostly of the visa officer's letter to the male applicant, declining the application. |
This is hardly "a very strong case on the face of the record" : it is the opposite.
| ... |
| [5] It is clear that the applicant's case is most unlikely to succeed, even if the solicitor's ill health were perfectly documented. This application should be dismissed. |
[3] That was on May 18, 2000. It is now Autumn and the applicant and applicant's solicitors have still not objectively documented the solicitor's ill health as alleged then and still alleged for this purpose. There is still no word on this record from the solicitor's physician or the solicitor's unidentified nurses, or her hospital, as mentioned at the end of paragraph [1] of the May 18 reasons.
[4] There is still no word of any complaint against Mr. Ali Yusef to the provincial law society for backing away from his alleged undertaking to take charge of the applicant's case. Was no one upset by such dereliction of professional responsibility? Proof of such a complaint would have buttressed solicitor Laws' sworn version of the crucial events.
[5] In the materials filed in support of this application for reconsideration, reference is made to the applicant's affidavit as if it were an affidavit. It is nothing of the kind, because that paper is neither signed by an affiant, nor attested by a person authorized to administer oaths or affirmations.
[6] There has been ample time to rectify the above noted defects. It is apparently true that the delay in prosecuting this application for judicial review was in no way the applicant's fault. He, no doubt, believed that he had placed his application into competent hands in far-off Canada.
[7] The decision of "designated immigration officer" C. Cheng, in Hong Kong, on August 5, 1999, has not been demonstrated to be incorrect.
[8] One point asserted by the applicant's first solicitor, Ms. Laws, is that she knows "of no prejudice that could be caused to the respondent should the order of May 18, 2000 dismissing this application be set aside and should the applicant be granted an extension of time to file his affidavits and [to] continue the proceeding." It is the respondent Minister's duty to administer the Act, and not lightly to countenance the frustration of administrative decisions rendered in good faith by immigration officers in the course of their duties. Such delays in administrative proceedings do constitute prejudice to the Minister.
[9] Finally, the applicant, by his solicitor, asserts as a ground for this motion that "the order [of May 18, 2000] does not appear to accord with any reasons given for it." The order is a document of record, but the applicant's solicitor makes no attempt to demonstrate that asserted lack of accord. That assertion is followed by the lame "ground" that "a matter that should have been dealt with may have been overlooked." (Emphasis not in original text.) This is not demonstrated whether it be likely or unlikely, definite or indefinite. The applicant's solicitor writes" "the applicant is 'severely' prejudiced by not being permitted to continue his application for judicial review." Those whose applications are dismissed probably do feel that they are "prejudiced", but such a feeling is no ground for appeal or continued litigation.
[10] The application for reconsideration is dismissed.
Judge