Parmar v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-1133-96
Gibson J.
26/6/97
7 pp.
Judicial review of respondent's delegate's decision applicant constituting danger to public in Canada pursuant to Immigration Act, s. 70(5)-Applicant immigrating from India in 1982-Criminal record consisting of convictions for minor property offence, failure to appear, as party to sexual assault under Criminal Code, s. 272(1)(d) for which sentenced to three years' imprisonment-Following last conviction, ordered deported-At hearing of appeal from deportation order, applicant served with notice case under review for possible issuance of "danger certificate"-Counsel for parties agreed letter having no effect as notice of possible issuance, and substantive portion of hearing commenced-Applicant not making any submissions in response to notice-After hearing concluded but before decision issued, applicant notified respondent of opinion constituting danger to public-Whether on basis of doctrine of "legitimate expectation" or "estoppel by representation" respondent erred in reviewable manner, by breaching duty of fairness-Application dismissed-Neither doctrine of legitimate expectation nor estoppel by representation applying-Gonsalves v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] F.C.J. No. 588 (T.D.) (QL), applied-Doctrine of legitimate expectation not creating substantive rights-Applicant urging conduct of respondent's representative before Immigration Appeal Division giving rise to substantive right in favour of applicant i.e. to preclude issuance of danger opinion against applicant-On facts issue not procedural right-Factors enunciated in Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Lidder, [1992] 2 F.C. 621 (C.A.) required to give rise to estoppel by representation missing-(1) Conclusion of respondent's representative at Immigration Appeal Board hearing letter received at hearing having no effect not representation of fact, but conclusion of law-(2) That applicant would rely on it to his detriment not something reasonable person would assume applicant would do-To warrant certification, Immigration Act, s. 83(1) providing question must be both serious and of general importance, and determinative on appeal-Questions posed by applicant serious, determinative on appeal, but not of general importance-Answers to proposed questions governed by particular facts relating to source, nature, circumstances of representations on which applicant relied and reasonableness of reliance-Law relating to doctrines of legitimate expectations and estoppel by representation well settled-Only application of that law to particular facts herein at issue-Result herein turning on unique facts and any guidance derived from appeal would be limited to matters with very similar facts-No question certified-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 70(5) (as enacted by S.C. 1995, c. 15, s. 13)-Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, s. 272 (as am. by S.C. 1995, c. 39, s. 145).