A-66-76
Jhamumal Dengamal (Applicant)
v.
Minister of Manpower and Immigration
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte, Ryan and Le Dain JJ.—
Toronto, June 10, 1976.
Judicial review—Immigration—Deportation ordered on
ground applicant remaining in Canada after ceasing to be
non-immigrant—Special Inquiry Officer wrong in assuming
that extension not granted where no documentary evidence
exists Deportation set aside—Federal Court Act, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
Laurence Kearley for applicant.
H. Erlichman for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Laurence Kearley, Toronto, for applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: The deportation order against which
this section 28 application is directed was made on
the ground that the applicant had entered Canada
as a non-immigrant and remained therein after
ceasing to be a non-immigrant. The Special Inqui
ry Officer reached that conclusion because of her
opinion that there was nothing in the evidence
indicating that the status of the applicant might
have been extended after May 20th, 1975. That
opinion, in our view, was clearly wrong and rested,
apparently, on the erroneous assumption that the
applicant's status could not be held to have been
extended if there was no documentary evidence of
the granting of such an extension.
For these reasons, it appears to us that the
deportation order was vitiated by an error of law
and shall be set aside.
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.