Kaisersingh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1994) 89 F.T.R. 276 (TD)

• Judge: Reed, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 02, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1994), 89 F.T.R. 276 (TD)

Kaisersingh v. Can. (M.C.I.) (1994), 89 F.T.R. 276 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Shanti Kaisersingh, Sagar Kaisersingh, Varindra Kaisersingh, Rajendra Kaisersingh and Shiva Kaisersingh (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-4272-93)

Indexed As: Kaisersingh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Reed, J.

December 13, 1994.

Summary:

An immigration officer decided that the Kaisersinghs, members of the Refugee Claimants Designated Class under the "Backlog Regulations", were not to be admitted to Canada because they were unable or unwilling to support themselves. The Kaisersinghs applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the application.

Aliens - Topic 1338.2

Admission, refugees - Refugee claims backlog, when admission refused - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that members of the Refugee Claimants Designated Class, as defined under s. 3(1) of the "Backlog Regulations" (Can.), who were not excluded under s. 3(2) of the "Backlog Regulations", had to meet the requirements of s. 19(1)(b) of the Immigration Act (Can.) to gain admission to Canada - This meant that these members had to show that they were not "unable or unwilling to support themselves" - In the present case, the applicant members had received social assistance from March 1990 to September 1992 and lived in subsidized housing after that date - Admission was refused - See paragraphs 1 to 18.

Aliens - Topic 4069

Practice - Judicial review - Appeals, certification of serious question by trial division - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, certified the following question though it answered it in the negative: "Does a person who meets the requirements of the designated class under subsection 3(1) of the Refugee Claimants Designated Class Regulations (the 'Backlog Regulations'), SOR/90-40, and who is not excluded by subsection 3(2) of the same regulations have a statutory right of landing (e.g. is not required to meet the requirements of paragraph 19(1)(b) of the Immigration Act to obtain landing)?" - See paragraphs 19 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

Minister of Employment and Immigration v. Mayers (1992), 150 N.R. 60, refd to. [para. 5].

Bitumar Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) (1986), 4 F.T.R. 98 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 5].

Kandasamy v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 87 F.T.R. 296 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9, note 6].

Mungeni v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 83 F.T.R. 274 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9, note 6].

Leung v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1990), 129 N.R. 391; 12 Imm. L.R.(2d) 43 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10, note 7].

Liyanagamage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 176 N.R. 4 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, sect. 6(2) [para. 2]; sect. 9(1) [para. 4]; sect. 19(1)(b) [paras. 1, 11, note 1]; sect. 19(1)(c), sect. 19(1)(d), sect. 19(1)(e), sect. 19(1)(f), sect. 19(1)(g,) sect. 19(1)(j) [para. 3]; sect. 20(1), sect. 23(3), sect. 23(4), sect. 23(7) [para. 11]; sect. 27(2)(c) [para. 3]; sect. 29(1), sect. 32(1)(3) [para. 11].

Immigration Act Regulations (Can.), Refugee Claimants Designated Class Regulations, SOR/90-40, sect. 3 [para. 8]; sect. 3(1) [para. 3, note 2]; sect. 3(2) [para. 3, note 3]; sect. 4 [para. 3]; sect. 5 [para. 4, note 5]; sect. 6 [para. 4, note 4].

Refugee Claimants Designated Class Regulations - see Immigration Act Regulations (Can.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Minister of Employment and Immigration, Regulatory Impact Statement re Backlog Regulations [para. 10].

Counsel:

Rocco Galati, for the applicants;

Kevin Lunney, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Rocco Galati, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants;

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on December 2, 1994, by Reed, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on December 13, 1994.