IMM-3303-96
B E T W E E N:
TOMASA TANDAGUEN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
GIBSON, J.:
These reasons arise out of an application for judicial review of the decision of the Area Manager, Canada Immigration Centre, Scarborough, Ontario to refuse an application for permanent residence under the Live-In-Caregiver program submitted by the Applicant on behalf of herself and her husband and children resident in the Philippines. The decision is dated the 29th of August, 1996. The basis of the decision was stated to be that the Applicant's daughter, Kathleen, was determined to be medically inadmissible under subparagraph 19(1)(a) (ii) of the Immigration Act.1
The relevant medical opinion or medical notification, does not appear either in the Tribunal record filed in this matter or in the Applicant's record. However, what purports to be an excerpt from the medical opinion is included in the Tribunal record and reads as follows:
| Diagnosis: Mild mental retardation. Narrative: This 14 year old applicant [Kathleen] is functionally impaired due to moderate mental retardation. She cannot handle money, travel alone on public conveyances or engage in simple tasks in school, the community or at home w/out supervision. She requires special education and vocational training but even with this, it is unlikely that she could ever become economically self-sufficient in the open Canadian labour market. It is reasonable to assume that she requires ongoing supervision and care at home and that her admission to CDA would likely create an excessive demand on the social services making her inadmissible under section 19(1)(A)(II) of the Immigration Act. |
The Applicant's husband in the Philippines was advised in writing of the medical notification and was invited to submit "... new medical information ..." for review by the appropriate senior medical officer. A medical report was provided by the Applicant's husband in reply which indicated on its face that it was based on two limited examinations and no psychological testing. The new medical information was apparently considered by an appropriate medical officer. Subsequently, according to the Tribunal record, an immigration officer in the Philippines analyzed the totality of the information on the Applicant's file. She or he concluded in part as follows:
| Therefore, I find the medical officer's decision reasonable on the facts as I know them. I note that the family was given ample opportunity and counselling on submitting additional medical information and note that the information submitted seemed to correlate with the diagnosis and was found by the medical officer to not change the medical assessment result. |
Counsel for the Applicant urged that the following reviewable errors are evident on the face of the material that was before the decision-maker: first, the Applicant's medical evidence with respect to Kathleen was not considered or was not adequately considered; second, the conclusion of the appropriate medical officer was unreasonable; third, the decision-maker's conclusion on the totality of the evidence that was before her or him was not reasonably open to her or him; fourth, the decision-maker must be inferred to have applied an inappropriate standard in assessing the medical admissibility of the Applicant's daughter Kathleen; fifth, the decision-maker failed to seek out information that would have demonstrated the level of family support that would be available in Canada to Kathleen; and sixth, the decision-maker failed to consider the Respondent's policy on "last remaining family members".
On the basis of the material before the Court in this matter and of argument by counsel, I can find no error on the part of the Respondent herein that would justify the intervention of this Court. As indicated earlier, the medical opinion underlying the decision in question does not appear in the material before the Court. It was open to the Applicant to ensure that the opinion was before the Court and the onus was on her to do so. In the absence of the report, on the basis of the excerpt from that report that does appear on the file, I can find no basis for a conclusion that the medical opinion arrived at was deficient or unreasonable in any material respect. In fact, the medical opinion submitted on behalf of the Applicant would appear on its face to support the Respondent's medical opinion. The officer in the Philippines who reviewed the totality of the filed material would appear to have done so in a comprehensive manner that meets the standard reflected in relevant case law. In the result, I conclude that it was reasonably open to the Respondent to reject the Applicant's application on behalf of herself and the members of her family.
This application for judicial review was therefore dismissed. Neither counsel recommended certification of a question. No question has been certified.
"Frederick E. Gibson"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
May 13, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-3303-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: TOMASA TANDAGUEN
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: MAY 12, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: GIBSON, J.
DATED: MAY 13, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Max Chaudhary
For the Applicant
Ms. Kathryn Hucal
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Chaudhary Law Office
812-255 Duncan Mill Road
North York, Ontario
M3B 3H9
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-3303-96
Between:
TOMASA TANDAGUEN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1 R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2. The relevant portion of subsection 19(1) of the Act reads as follows:
19.(1) No person shall be granted admission who is a member of any of the following classes: (a) persons who are suffering from any disease, disorder, disability or other health impairment as a result of the nature, severity of probable duration of which, in the opinion of a medical officer concurred by at least one other medical officer,
...
(ii) their admission would cause or might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demands on health or social services;
...