A-714-82
Sukhwant Singh (Applicant)
v.
Minister of Employment and Immigration
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte, Urie and Le Dain JJ.—
Toronto, February 18, 1983.
Immigration — Summary dismissal by Immigration Appeal
Board of application for redetermination of refugee claim —
Board's decision made under s. 71(1) of Act — Whether
applicant deprived of right to liberty and security provided for
in s. 7 of Charter — Whether principles of fundamental justice
requiring Board to give applicant opportunity to be heard
orally — Deprivation of rights, if any, resulting from acts by
authorities of applicant's country — S. 7 of Charter referring
to deprivation of rights by Canadian authorities applying
Canadian laws — Application for judicial review dismissed —
Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, ss. 70(2), 71(1) —
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the
Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c.
11 (U.K.), s. 7.
Judicial review — Applications to review — Immigration —
Immigration Appeal Board summarily dismissing application
for redetermination of refugee claim — Board's decision made
under s. 71(1) of Immigration Act, 1976 — Whether Board
could dispose of claim without hearing— Whether applicant's
rights under s. 7 of Charter violated — Application dismissed
— Board's decision not affecting applicant's right to liberty
and security of the person — Deprivation of rights under s. 7
referring to deprivation by Canadian authorities applying
Canadian laws — Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52,
ss. 70(2), 71(1) — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B,
Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.), s. 7 — Federal Court
Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Immigration —
Immigration Appeal Board's decision summarily dismissing
application for redetermination of refugee claim not depriving
applicant's right to liberty and security of the person — S. 7 of
Charter referring to deprivation of rights by Canadian
authorities applying Canadian laws — Application for judicial
review dismissed — Canadian Charter of Rights and Free
doms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B,
Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.), s 7.
CASE JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED
REFERRED TO:
Kwiatkowsky v. Minister of Employment and Immigra
tion, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 856.
COUNSEL:
N. E. Gehl for applicant.
C. Kobernick for respondent.
SOLICITOR:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
APPLICANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF:
Sukhwant Singh.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: This section 28 application is direct
ed against a decision of the Immigration Appeal
Board, made pursuant to subsection 71(1) of the
Immigration Act, 1976 [S.C. 1976-77, c. 52],
dismissing summarily the applicant's application
for redetermination of his refugee claim.
The Board's decision was made in the manner
contemplated in subsection 71(1) and on the basis
of the written material specified in subsection
70(2). Counsel's sole argument in support of the
application was that, as the material before the
Board established that the applicant's claim was
not frivolous, the Board could not dispose of it
without a hearing. In support of this contention,
which cannot be reconciled with the recent deci
sion of the Supreme Court of Canada in Kwiat-
kowsky v. Minister of Employment and Immigra
tion [[1982] 2 S.C.R. 856], counsel invoked
section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms [being Part I of the Constitution Act,
1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11
(U.K.)]. That provision provides that:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the
person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Counsel's argument was that the Board, in
rejecting the applicant's claim, had in effect
deprived him of the right to liberty and security of
the person and that, as a consequence, such a
decision had to be made in accordance with the
principles of fundamental justice which, in the
circumstances of this case, required that the appli
cant be given the opportunity to be heard orally by
the Board.
That argument, in our view, must be rejected.
The decision of the Board did not have the effect
of depriving the applicant of his right to life,
liberty and security of the person. If the applicant
is deprived of any of those rights after his return to
his own country, that will be as a result of the acts
of the authorities or of other persons of that
country, not as a direct result of the decision of the
Board. In our view, the deprivation of rights
referred to in section 7 refers to a deprivation of
rights by Canadian authorities applying Canadian
laws.
For these reasons, the application will be
dismissed.
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.