A-16-80
Bhupinder Singh Rai (Applicant)
v.
Minister of Employment and Immigration
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte, Heald and Le Dain JJ.—
Vancouver, May 8, 1980.
Judicial review — Immigration — Applicant had a non
refundable, open 120-day excursion ticket with no date
booked for his return to India — Adjudicator made exclusion
order without regard to fact that ticket was non-refundable —
Whether Adjudicator erred in failing to consider totality of
evidence — Application allowed (Pratte J. dissenting) — Fed
eral Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp), c. 10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
D. Stoller for applicant.
A. Louie for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
John Taylor Associates, Vancouver, for
applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment
delivered orally in English by
HEALD J.: It is my view that the Adjudicator
based his decision, to some extent, on the uncon-
tradicted circumstance that the applicant's 120-
day excursion ticket was an open ticket with no
date booked for his return to India in two months
time, but without having regard to the additional
circumstance, also uncontradicted, that the ticket
was non-refundable. This is, in my view, an impor
tant circumstance, which if properly considered,
might well have resulted in an inference and a
conclusion which would support the applicant's
contention that he was a genuine visitor. I have
thus concluded that the Adjudicator made his
decision without regard to the totality of the ma
terial before him. I would therefore allow the
section 28 application and set aside the exclusion
order.
* * *
LE DAIN J. concurred.
* * *
PRATTE J. dissented.
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.