Grewal (N.S.) v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, (1984) 16 F.T.R. 176 (TD)

• Judge: Muldoon, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 09, 1984
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1984), 16 F.T.R. 176 (TD)

Grewal v. MEI (1984), 16 F.T.R. 176 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Narinder Singh Grewal (applicant) v. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (respondent)

(T-669-84)

Indexed As: Grewal (N.S.) v. Minister of Employment and Immigration

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Muldoon, J.

April 25, 1984.

Summary:

Grewal came to Canada from India and claimed to be a convention refugee. He was examined under oath by a senior immigration official pursuant to s. 45(1) of the Immigration Act, 1976. The Minister of Employment and Immigration rejected his claim. He applied for a redetermination of his claim, but the Immigration Appeal Board refused to allow his application to proceed and determined that he was not a convention refugee. Grewal applied to the Appeal Division of the Federal Court under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act to review and set aside the board's decision.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application. Grewal then applied to the Trial Division of the Federal Court under s. 18 of the Federal Court Act for certiorari to quash the decision of the Minister in refusing his claim to be a convention refugee on the ground that the examination before the immigration officer was conducted improperly. He also sought to prohibit the Minister from proceeding with an inquiry.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed Grewal's s. 18 application on the ground that the matter was res judicata, because of the Appeal Division's decision. The court held, in any event, that the examination under oath by the senior immigration officer was conducted properly in accordance with the law.

(This 1984 decision is being reported at this time because of a request from one of our readers).

Aliens - Topic 1326

Admission - Refugees - Procedure - Grewal claimed to be a convention refugee and was examined under oath respecting his claim by a senior immigration officer - The Minister of Employment and Immigration rejected his claim - The Immigration Appeal Board refused to allow his application for redetermination to proceed, holding that he was not a convention refugee - He applied to review and set aside the board's decision under s. 28 of the Federal Court Act - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal - He then applied to the Trial Division for prerogative relief under s. 18 of the Federal Court Act, alleging that his examination under oath by the immigration officer was improperly conducted - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed his application on the ground, inter alia, that the matter was res judicata because of the Appeal Division's decision.

Aliens - Topic 1326

Admission - Refugees - Procedure - Examination under oath - Grewal claimed to be a convention refugee and was examined under oath by a senior immigration officer pursuant to s. 45(1) of the Immigration Act, 1976 - His claim was rejected - He applied for certiorari to quash the decision arguing that the examination under oath was improperly conducted because the officer attacked Grewal's credibility which went beyond the mandate of the officer under s. 45(1) - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, discussed the mandate of the officer under s. 45(1), examined the questions asked of Grewal and held that his examination was properly conducted.

Estoppel - Topic 377

Estoppel by record - Res judicata - As a bar to subsequent proceedings - When applicable - [See first Aliens - Topic 1326 above].

Cases Noticed:

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1983), 50 N.R. 385, consd. [para. 9 et seq., footnote 1].

Singh v. The Minister of Employment and Immigration, 51 N.R. 32, consd. [para. 9 et seq., footnote 2].

Saraos v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1982] 1 F.C. 304; 36 N.R. 305, consd. [para. 21, footnote 11].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Wade, Administrative Law (5th Ed.), p. 595 [para. 14].

Counsel:

David Matas, for the applicant;

Brian Hay, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

David Matas, Winnipeg, Manitoba, for the applicant;

R. Tasse, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on April 9, 1984, in Winnipeg, Manitoba, before Muldoon, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on April 25, 1984: