A-642-77
Genette Laurent (Applicant)
v.
G. Perron and Minister of Canada Employment
and Immigration (Respondents)
and
Deputy Attorney General of Canada (Mis -en-
cause)
Court of Appeal, Ryan and Le Dain JJ. and Hyde
D.J.—Montreal, October 31; Ottawa, November
7, 1977.
Judicial review — Immigration — Minister's certificate
cancelled on withdrawal of husband's application for appli
cant's admission — Personal application made for permanent
residence — Inquiry found inadmissible — No valid subsisting
immigrant visa — Validity of Minister's cancellation attacked,
and consequently jurisdiction of Special Inquiry Officer —
Special Inquiry Officer without jurisdiction to inquire into
cancellation of ministerial permit — Ministerial permit is only
an administrative decision and hence not reviewable — Federal
Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28 — Immigra
tion Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-2, s. 5(t) — Immigration Regula
tions, Part I, SOR/62-36 as amended by SOR/72-443.
Minister of Manpower and Immigration v. Hardayal
[1978] 1 S.C.R. 470, followed.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
•
A. H. J. Zaitlin, Q.C., for applicant.
Claude Joyal for respondents and mis -en-
cause.
SOLICITORS:
A. H. J. Zaitlan, Q.C., Montreal, for
applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondents and mis -en-cause.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court rendered in English by
LE DAIN J.: This is a section 28 application to
set aside a deportation order. Judgment was deliv
ered from the bench dismissing the application
with the indication that written reasons would 12e
delivered later. These are the reasons for
judgment.
On September 19, 1973 the applicant was
admitted to Canada as a tourist until October 10,
1973. She remained in the country without any
apparent extension of her legal status until Octo-
ber 1976. On October 10, 1976 she married one
Émile Laurent, a landed immigrant, at Montreal.
Laurent made an application for her admission to
Canada as a sponsored dependent, and on October
14, 1976 she was granted a Minister's permit,
pursuant to section 8 of the Immigration Act,
R.S.C. 1970, c. I-2, permitting her to remain in
the country until October 13, 1977, while her
husband's application for her admission was being
processed. On May 5, 1977, Laurent filed a statu
tory declaration with the immigration authorities
in which he, in effect, withdrew his application for
the admission of the applicant as a sponsored
dependent. On May 24, 1977 the Minister's permit
was cancelled effective June 7, 1977. The appli
cant reported to the immigration authorities on
June 8, 1977, pursuant to section 7(3) of the
Immigration Act, and applied to be admitted to
Canada as a permanent resident. The immigration
officer who examined her made a report pursuant
to section 22 of the Act in which he expressed the
opinion that the admission of the applicant was
prohibited under section 5(t) of the Act in that she
was not in possession of a valid and subsisting
immigrant visa as required by section 28 of the
Immigration Regulations, Part I, SOR/62-36 as
amended by SOR/72-443. An inquiry was held,
the applicant was found to be inadmissible on this
ground, and on September 15, 1977 she was
ordered to be deported.
The applicant attacks the deportation order on
the ground that the cancellation of the Minister's
permit pursuant to section 8(3) of the Act was
invalid, and that for this reason the Special Inqui
ry Officer exceeded his jurisdiction or otherwise
erred in law in ordering her deportation. The
applicant argues, on grounds of public policy, that
the Immigration Regulations should be so con
strued as to preclude the withdrawal by a husband
of an application for the admission of his wife as a
sponsored dependent, once it has been made, and
that in any event such a withdrawal should not be
a valid ground for the cancellation of a Minister's
permit which has been granted pending the dispo•
sition of such an application. We strongly doubt
the merits of this contention, despite the very rea
hardship that such withdrawal may cause, but it
any event we are all of the opinion that such z
ground for attacking the validity of the cancella
tion of a Minister's permit cannot be a ground foi
attacking the validity of the deportation order. A
Special Inquiry Officer does not have jurisdiction
to inquire into the question whether a Minister';
permit has been cancelled for a valid reason. He
does not have power to review the Minister's exer
cise of discretion. A valid exercise of such discre
tion is in no sense a condition precedent to his owr
jurisdiction. Nor does he err in law in assuming
the validity of the cancellation of a Minister';
permit that is valid on its face and concluding that
the applicant is without legal status in the country
The Supreme Court of Canada has held that the
cancellation of a Minister's permit pursuant tc
section 8(3) of the Act is an administrative deci
sion that is not required to be made on a judicial
or quasi-judicial basis'. That is further reason wh)
it should not be subject to collateral attack in z
section 28 application directed at a deportation
order. Such an exercise of discretion must be
attacked directly by other recourse if it is to be
attacked at all.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration v. Hardaya
[1978] 1 S.C.R. 470.
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.