A-300-78
Harjit Singh Bhumre (Applicant)
v.
Minister of Employment and Immigration
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte, Heald and Urie JJ.—
Vancouver, October 2, 1978.
Judicial review — Immigration — Failure of Adjudicator to
explain difference between deportation order and departure
notice resulting in non-compliance with Regulation 29(2) —
Applicant, with only elementary knowledge of English, not
represented by lawyer — Violation of Regulation likely result
ed in unfairness to applicant — Deportation order quashed
and referred back to Adjudicator for determination in compli
ance with Regulation — Immigration Regulations, 1978,
SOR/78-172, s. 29(2) — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd
Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
D. Vick for applicant.
G. Donegan for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
John Taylor & Associates, Vancouver, for
applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for order deliv
ered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: We are all of opinion that in not
explaining the difference between a deportation
order and a departure notice, the Adjudicator
failed to comply with Regulation 29(2), SOR/78-
172. We are also of the view that, in the circum
stances of this case where the applicant was not
represented by a lawyer and had obviously not
more than an elementary knowledge of the English
language, this violation of the Regulation likely
resulted in an unfairness to the applicant.
For these reasons the deportation order will be
quashed and this matter will be referred back to
the Adjudicator to determine, after compliance
with Regulation 29(2), whether a deportation
order or a departure notice shall be made in this
case.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.