A-490-76
Vitalina Candelaria Pineda Peralta de Morataya,
Rosa Amanda Morataya, Mario Efrain Morataya
and Maria Elisabeth Morataya (Applicants)
v.
Minister of Manpower and Immigration
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ. and Hyde.
D.J.—Montreal, September 27, 1976.
Judicial review—Immigration—Appeal against inclusion in
deportation order pursuant to s. 34 of the Immigration Act—
Interpretation of the wording of s. 34—Immigration Act,
R.S.C. 1970, c. I-2, s. 34—Federal Court Act, s. 28.
Applicants were included, pursuant to section 34 of the
Immigration Act, in deportation order made against Efrain
Morataya-Godoy.
Held, the order is quashed. The applicants were not depend
ents of Efrain Morataya-Godoy. The Special Inquiry Officer
must have interpreted section 34 to include members of a
family on whom other members are usually dependent. In fact
the applicants were not financially dependent on Efrain Mora-
taya-Godoy during their stay in Canada.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
Florent Philibert for applicants.
G. R. Léger for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid, Montreal International Airport,
Mirabel, for applicants.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: Applicants challenge the decision of
a Special Inquiry Officer, made under section 34
of the Immigration Act', which ordered that they
be included in the deportation order made against
Efrain Morataya-Godoy.
' R.S.C. 1970, c. I-2.
In our opinion, the decision a quo must be set
aside because, after referring to the facts estab
lished by the Special Inquiry Officer, we feel that
applicants did not depend on Mr. Efrain Mora-
taya-Godoy for their support. If the Special Inqui
ry Officer decided otherwise, he did so because he
felt that the words "a member of a family upon
whom other members are dependent for their sup
port" in section 34(1) meant "members of a family
on whom other members ordinarily and usually
depend for their support". This explains why he
ignored the undisputed fact that, during their stay
in Canada, applicants were not financially depend
ent on Mr. Efrain Morataya-Godoy. In our opin
ion, the Special Inquiry Officer interpreted section
34(1) incorrectly. To determine whether a person
is dependent on another within the meaning of this
section, it is necessary to take into consideration
not only the ordinary and usual circumstances but
also, and most importantly, those prevailing when
the person is in Canada.
For these reasons, the decision a quo is 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.