76-A-317
Panayote Chalikiopoulos and Dependent Family
(Applicant)
v.
Minister of Manpower and Immigration
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Urie and Le Dain JJ. and
MacKay D.J.—Toronto, November 4, 1976.
Application for leave to appeal from Immigration Appeal
Board—Whether Board erred in law in deciding wife not
appellant—No separate documents filed on her behalf—Evi-
dence and submissions that might have been heard on her
behalf considered—No contention that wife not dependent—
Appeal dismissed.
APPLICATION for leave to appeal.
COUNSEL:
Walter C. Deakon for applicant.
K. F. Braid for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Walter C. Deakon, Toronto, for applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Ca.nada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
LE DAIN J.: The sole issue of law on this
application for leave to appeal is whether the
Immigration Appeal Board erred in law in decid
ing that the wife was not an appellant. This deci
sion appears to have been based on the fact that a
separate notice of appeal, accompanied by a sworn
declaration claiming refugee status, was not filed
on her behalf. In our opinion, the Board did not err
in law in coming to this conclusion. It is clear,
however, that all the evidence and submissions
that might have been made on behalf of the wife
had she been a separate appellant were made with
respect to the deportation order in which she had
been included as a dependent. What might have
been her claim to refugee status or relief on com
passionate or humanitarian grounds was fully
asserted in the consideration of the position of her
husband and the members of his family. There was
no contention that the wife was not dependent.
The application for leave to appeal will according
ly be dismissed.
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.