Date:20000503
Docket:A-283-98
CORAM: STONE, J.A.
EVANS, J.A.
MALONE, J.A.
BETWEEN:
CHI WAH ANTHONY LEUNG
Appellant
(Applicant in the Trial Division)
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
(Respondent in the Trial Division)
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Wednesday, May 3, 2000
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
on Wednesday, May 3, 2000
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: STONE J.A. |
Date: 2000503
Docket: A-283-98
BETWEEN:
CHI WAH ANTHONY LEUNG
Appellant
(Applicant in the Trial Division)
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
(Respondent in the Trial Division)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Wednesday, May 3, 2000)
STONE J.A.
[1] The appellant comes to this Court by way of an appeal from the Trial Division on the following question certified by Gibson J. pursuant to subsection 83(1) of the Immigration Act:
| Is a visa officer under a duty to question the reasonableness of the Minister"s decision made pursuant to section 19(1)(c.1)(i) where on the face of the record the decision may be unreasonable? |
[2] Subparagraph 19(1)(c.1)(i) of the Act reads:
| 19.(1) No person shall be granted admission who is a member of any of the following classes: |
| ... |
| (c.1) persons who there are reasonable grounds to believe |
| ... |
| (i) have been convicted outside Canada of an offence that if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence that may be punishable under any Act of Parliament by a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years of more, or |
| ... |
| except persons who have satisfied the Minister that they have rehabilitated themselves and that at least five years have elapsed since the expiration of any sentence imposed for the offence or since the commission of the act or omission, as the case may be; [Emphasis added.] |
| ... |
[3] The same arguments as are advanced by the appellant here were advanced before Gibson J., who rejected them. In doing so the learned Motions Judge stated at paragraph 14 of his reasons1:
| The responsibility for being satisfied as to rehabilitation is here vested in the Minister. Her responsibility is discretionary. She need only be satisfied, but she must be satisfied for inadmissibility to be lifted. Rehabilitation involves an assessment as to future comportment based upon actions, attitudes and comportment since conviction. It is worthy of note that the responsibility for rehabilitation decisions has been vested in the Minister, not in officials such as visa officers. It was for the Minister to determine whether or not she was satisfied and the fact that the visa officer who prepared the submission to her was himself satisfied is of no consequence. |
[4] In our respectful opinion, that view is plainly dictated by the language of subparagraph 19(1)(c.1)(i), which endows the Minister with an unqualified discretion. It is not incumbent on the visa officer, therefore, to question the reasonableness of the Minister"s decision.
[5] The appeal will therefore be dismissed for these reasons and the reasons given by Gibson J., and the certified question will be answered in the negative.
"A. J. Stone"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| DOCKET: A-283-98 |
| STYLE OF CAUSE: CHI WAH ANTHONY LEUNG |
Appellant
(Applicant in the Trial Division)
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| (Respondent in the Trial Division) |
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
| OF THE COURT BY: STONE J.A. |
Delivered at Toronto, Ontario on Wednesday, May 3, 2000
APPEARANCES: Ms. Stephen Green
| For the Appellant |
Mr. Godwin Friday
| For the Respondent |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Green & Spiegel |
Barristers & Solicitors
Box 114, Standard Life Centre
2200-121 King St. W.
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 3T9
| For the Appellant |
| Morris Rosenberg |
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
| For the Respondent |
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20000503
Docket: A-283-98
BETWEEN:
| CHI WAH ANTHONY LEUNG |
Appellant
(Applicant in the Trial Division)
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
(Respondent in the Trial Division)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
| OF THE COURT |
__________________