CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Immigration Practice |
Lopez v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-5716-99
Teitelbaum J.
18/9/00
13 pp.
Judicial review of CRDD's determination applicant's claim for Convention refugee status abandoned--Applicant, Mexican citizen, claiming asylum in June 1999--Determined eligible to have claim put before CRDD on July 22, 1999--Received "refugee kit" including personal information form (PIF) August 22 or 23, 1999--Applied for legal aid September 14, 1999--On September 17, 1999 CRDD issued notice to appear for abandonment of Convention refugee claim--Hearing date set for October 26, 1999--Applicant met with counsel on October 6, 1999, and PIF submitted October 21, 1999 along with letter requesting extension of time for filing PIF--Counsel unable to appear for hearing--No adjournment requested--Immigration Act, s. 46.03(2) requiring Convention refugee claimant to provide Refugee Division with information required by rules, in manner and within period set out in rules made under s. 65(1)--S. 69.1(6)(b) permitting CRDD to declare claim abandoned where claimant not providing information referred to in s. 46.03(2)--By referring to s. 46.03(2) and not expressly limiting its reference, s. 69.1(6)(b) necessarily encompassing all of that section within own ambit--Applicant not providing CRDD with required information in required manner--Material not filed, but submitted--Not before CRDD until extension of time granted--Therefore CRDD not erring in holding abandonment show cause hearing on basis of s. 69.1(6)(b)--But panel not expressly contemplating requested application for extension--S. 69.1(6)(b) incorporating by reference s. 46.03(2), in turn incorporating by reference s. 65(1)--S. 65(1)(c) empowering Deputy Chairperson of CRDD to make rules governing, inter alia, information required under s. 46.03(2)--Thus CRDD Rules incorporated by reference within both ss. 46.03(2), 69.1(6)(b)--R. 14(2)(b)(iii) requiring information to be filed within 28 days from day on which form served--R. 38 permitting Refugee Division to shorten, extend time limit--CRDD should not have restricted scope of hearing solely to whether r. 14(2)(b)(iii) complied with, but should also have enquired into r. 38 in order to provide for full, proper hearing, following applicant's application for extension--May be argued panel implicitly considered application for extension of time by questioning him as to why failed to file PIF in timely manner and ultimately determining claim abandoned--But not apparent from reasons panel turned its mind to issue of whether extension should be granted in order to provide for full and proper hearing as required by r. 38--Application allowed on basis panel not expressly considering, determining applicant's application for extension under r. 38--As application allowed, not necessary to determine whether questions should be certified--Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, ss. 46.03(2) (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 14; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 37), 65(1) (as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 55), 69.1(6) (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 18; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 60)--Convention Refugee Determination Division Rules, SOR/93-45, rr. 14(2), 38.