Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19980324


Docket: A-32-97

CORAM:      PRATTE J.A.

         DÉCARY J.A.

         LINDEN J.A.

BETWEEN:

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Appellant

     (Applicant in the Trial Division)

     - and -

     SATPAL SINGH JHATU

     Respondent

     (Respondent in the Trial Division)

Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on Tuesday, March 24, 1998.

Judgment delivered from the Bench on Tuesday, March 24, 1998.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:      PRATTE J.A.


Date: 19980324


Docket: A-32-97

CORAM:      PRATTE J.A.

         DÉCARY J.A.

         LINDEN J.A.

BETWEEN:

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Appellant

     (Applicant in the Trial Division)

     - and -

     SATPAL SINGH JHATU

     Respondent

     (Respondent in the Trial Division)

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia,

     on Tuesday, March 24, 1998)

PRATTE J.A.


[1]      We are of the view that the real reason why the Board refused to hear "victim impact evidence" in this case was their opinion that, in the circumstances, that evidence would not help them in any way. The Board neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor erred in law in reaching that conclusion. If the question certified by the Associate Chief Justice is read as referring only to the circumstances of this case, it must, therefore, be answered in the negative; in other circumstances, it might have to be answered differently.


[2]      The appeal will be dismissed.

     "Louis Pratte"

     J.A.

     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL


Date: 19980324


Docket: A-32-97

BETWEEN:

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION

     Appellant

     (Applicant in the Trial Division)

     - and -

     SATPAL SINGH JHATU

     Respondent

     (Respondent in the Trial Division)

    

     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

     OF THE COURT

    

 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.