Court File No. IMM-629-98
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
B E T W E E N:
IDRIS PATEL,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------
P R O C E E D I N G S
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. TEITELBAUM
Court Room No. 6
330 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario,
on Wednesday, March 10th, 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE REGISTRAR: RAYANNE CLAPHAM
COUNSEL:
T. FERNANDO, Esq., for the Applicant,
B. FRIMETH, Esq., for the Respondent.
I N D E X O F P R O C E E D I N G S
Pages(s)
Oral reasons and Judgment
Justice Teitelbaum ...................... 3 - 4
---Oral Reasons commence:
THE COURT: I will give you my judgment right now.
I am satisfied after having read the entire record, particularly the transcript, that there was a denial of natural justice in the actions of the Board in this particular case, and therefore, I am going to quash the decision of the board and remit it back to the Board for re-hearing.
MR. FRIMETH: Thank you, My Lord.
THE COURT: Let me finish.
MR. FRIMETH: Sorry, My Lord.
THE COURT: Notwithstanding the explanation given to me by the representative of the Crown, or the Minister, it appears from the record that the first time the hearing was supposed to take place - and of course we don't know whether or not the applicant would have been able to appear with counsel - the matter was postponed by the Board because they were unable to have a sufficient number of members present to hear the refugee claimant's request for refugee status. I find it incomprehensible that the board would refuse an Applicant this first request for an adjournment, the request being made because his counsel was not able to appear.
I clearly understand that four months elapsed
from the date set for the first hearing to the date set for the second hearing, but that in itself is not a reason to decide not to grant an adjournment made by an individual.
In addition, it is clear from the documents in the file that the applicant had a very, very limited understanding of the English language. And to give an applicant a huge volume of documents and say: 'Here, read through them. Look through them.', even with the help of an interpreter, and then we will proceed, is, in my view, another denial of natural justice.
I think I had better not say anything further in that there are no questions to be certified.
JUDGMENT
So therefore, as I have stated, the application for judicial review is allowed, and the matter is returned for a new hearing before a differently appointed board. There was no question submitted for certification.
Thank you very, very, very much.
MR. FERNANDO: Thank you, My Lord.
COURT USHER: Order, please; all rise.
---Whereupon, court proceedings in this matter were adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
Court File No. IMM-629-98
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Patel-v-MCI
March 10, 1999
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---------------------------
| I hereby CERTIFY the foregoing to be a |
| true and accurate transcription of my |
| shorthand notes, to the best of my skill |
| and ability. |
as per:---------------------------------
A.F.Galloway, Court Reporter.
Telephone: (416) 482-3277
Toronto, Ontario
March 16, 1999.
Quality Control Dept.:------------------