CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Immigration Practice |
Stumf v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
A-699-00
2002 FCA 148, Sharlow J.A.
23/4/02
4 pp.
Appeal from dismissal of application for judicial review of decision not to re-open claims--Appellants married couple, minor child--CRDD determined refugee claims abandoned-- Single member of Board denying motion to have refugee claims reopened--Application for judicial review of that decision dismissed, question certified--Appeal not pursued on certified question of whether motion to re-open refugee claim may be heard by single member of Board as question already determined in Faghihi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] 1 F.C. 249 (T.D.)--Appellants pressing alternative argument based on absence of any indication in record Immigration Act, s. 69(4) considered although Board aware at all times one claimant minor child--S. 69(4) requiring Refugee Division to designate another person to represent person under 18 years of age--Appropriate to consider issue at this stage even though not raised before as record disclosing all relevant facts and no suggestion of prejudice to Minister--Designation of representative could have affected outcome--Obligation imposed by s. 69(4) to appoint representative for any refugee claimant meeting statutory criteria arising at earliest point at which Board aware of those facts--Age of minor claimant apparent from outset-- Designation of representative should have been considered at least when abandonment proceedings contemplated, and certainly before motion to re-open considered--Failure to do so error vitiating refusal of motion--Appeal allowed-- Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 69(4) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 18).