A-399-76
Pierre Piangos (Applicant)
v.
Minister of Manpower and Immigration
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Heald and Ryan JJ. and
MacKay D.J.—Toronto, September 7 and 8, 1976.
Judicial review — Immigration — Practice — Applicant ad
mitted to Canada as non-immigrant— No evidence as to
length of visit—Obvious intention to stay permanently
Appeal against deportation order dismissed Immigration
Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-2, ss. 18(1)(e)(vi) and 18(2)—Immigra-
tion Regulation 3A(1)—Federal Court Act, s. 28.
Applicant's passport was stamped at date of entry as non-
immigrant but there was no evidence there or anywhere else as
to the length of the visit. Applicant obviously intended to stay
permanently, but failed to make proper application and was
ordered deported.
Held, the application under section 28 of the Federal Court
Act is dismissed. Applicant's conduct indicates intention to
remain in Canada as long as possible, but he made no applica
tion for an extension of his visiting rights under Immigration
Regulation 3A(1). Accordingly he is subject to deportation.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
Applicant in person.
E. A. Bowie for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Applicant in person.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment
rendered in English by
HEALD J.: I have concluded, after anxious con
sideration, that this section 28 application must be
dismissed. I have reached this conclusion with
some hesitation because of the somewhat unusual
circumstances of this case. The section 18 report
forming the basis for the special inquiry states that
the applicant was admitted to Canada on Septem-
ber 25, 1974 under section 7(1)(c) (non-immigrant
tourist or visitor) for a period to expire on Decem-
ber 25, 1974. However, none of the evidence at the
inquiry establishes the period for which the appli
cant was, in fact, admitted. Applicant's passport
was stamped by the immigration officer on the
date of admission (September 25, 1974) but there
is no indication thereon or anywhere else of the
length of the visit. The applicant was the only
witness called to give evidence at the inquiry and
he testified that he was not given any document or
piece of paper indicating the length of the visit. He
denies that any immigration official advised him
that his visit was restricted to a period of 3
months. It seems unfortunate that evidence was
not called to substantiate such advice to the appli
cant if it was, in fact, given to him.
Counsel for the respondent relies on Immigra
tion Regulation 3A(1) which provides that: "Every
person who seeks to enter Canada as a non-immi
grant for a limited time longer than three
months ... shall make application to an immigra
tion officer at the port of entry on a prescribed
form for registration as a non-immigrant, and if,
after examination by an immigration officer, he is
granted entry for a limited time longer than three
months, his entry shall be registered by the immi
gration officer on a prescribed form." Counsel's
submission is that since, in this case, the applicant
made no such application for a period longer than
3 months, that it is to be inferred that the
approved length of visit was for 3 months. At first
glance, I had doubts as to whether the evidence
established that this applicant was a person "who
seeks to eater Canada as a non-immigrant for a
limited time longer than three months" so as to
make Regulation 3A(1) applicable. However, on a
more careful perusal of the evidence, I am satisfied
that the applicant came to Canada to stay just as
long as he possibly could and if possible, perma
nently (see transcript pp. 14, 15, 16). This inten
tion has been confirmed by his subsequent conduct
in remaining here from September 25, 1974 until
the present. Accordingly, Regulation 3A(1) does
apply, the applicant was required to apply for any
period in excess of 3 months which he did not do
and he did not receive the permission of an immi
gration officer to remain in Canada after the 3
month period expired. Accordingly section
18(1)(e)(vi) and section 18(2) of the Immigration
Act apply and the applicant is subject to
deportation.
I cannot complete these reasons without com
menting upon an administrative practice which
seems to have been established in the Immigration
Department. I refer to the practice of not specifi
cally informing each applicant of the length of a
visitor's permit where the approved period is for 3
months. It would be a simple matter for the immi
gration officer to be provided with an additional
stamp or an amended stamp which could be
imprinted on each applicant's passport and which
would clearly indicate the expiry date of a visitor's
permit. If this was done, there would be no possi
bility of an applicant claiming, as did this claimant
(and his testimony was uncontradicted) that he
was never informed as to the length of his
approved stay. When one considers that many of
the applicants for non-immigrant status do not
understand either of the official languages of
Canada, that they are, in many cases, uninformed
as to Canadian requirements and Canadian laws,
it would seem desirable that Canadian immigra
tion authorities make every effort to ensure that
such applicants understand what is happening to
them and why. Every effort should be made by
Departmental officials to assist and enlighten these
applicants for admission to our country as to their
rights, duties and obligations under the laws of
Canada.
* * *
RYAN J.: I concur.
* * *
MACKAY D.J.: I concur.
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.