Date: 19990819
Docket: IMM-3590-99
BETWEEN:
CONG LE YAO
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
PELLETIER J.:
| [1] The applicant wishes to immigrate to Canada. He hires an immigration consultant to help him. The consultant provides Immigration officials with an address containing typographical errors. The applicant is called in for an interview by a letter addressed to the address supplied by the consultant, typographical errors and all. The letter never arrives even though others containing the same error are delivered. The applicant does not attend the interview because he does not know about it. His application is rejected on the ground that he has not provided information as requested, contrary to s. 9(3), which makes him a member of an ineligible class pursuant to s. 19(2)d). |
| [2] Upon hearing of the rejection, the applicant"s immigration consultant attempts to persuade Immigration officials to reschedule the interview rather than dismissing the application. They decline to do so. He tries two more times to change their mind. They refuse. They say that all applicants have an obligation to provide accurate information. If they make an exception for consultant"s errors, then applicants with consultants will be in a privileged position and it is the Department"s position to treat all applicants alike. In the meantime, the time for making an application for judicial review has passed. The applicant brings this request for an extension of time which the Department opposes. |
| [3] While there is a great deal of administrative convenience in the manner in which the Department has chosen to deal with "no shows", the policy fails to distinguish between persons who do not show after having been given notice, and those who, for whatever reason, do not get the notice. To the extent that s. 9(3) and 19 (2) d) deal with intentional conduct, an issue which I raise but do not decide, a person who has not received notice may not within their ambit. This is a serious question. |
| [4] The applicant has explained the delay in bringing his application for judicial review. The application for an extension of time is allowed. The applicant shall have 15 days from the date of this order to serve and file his Notice of Application. |
"J.D. Denis Pelletier"
JUDGE
TORONTO, ONTARIO
August 19, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| COURT NO: IMM-3590-99 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: CONG LE YAO |
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369.
| REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: PELLETIER J. |
| DATED: THURSDAY, AUGUST 19, 1999 |
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Jackman, Waldman & Associates
Barristers & Solicitors
281 Eglinton Avenue East
Toronto, Ontario
M4P 1L3
| For the Applicant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date:19990819
Docket: IMM-3590-99
Between:
| CONG LE YAO |
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER