Lowe and Lacrette v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, (1987) 16 F.T.R. 124 (TD)

• Judge: Addy, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 09, 1987
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1987), 16 F.T.R. 124 (TD)

Lowe v. MEI (1987), 16 F.T.R. 124 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Anthony Allan Lowe and Carole M. Lacrette (applicants) v. Minister of Employment and Immigration and Department of Employment and Immigration (respondents)

(No. T-2124-87)

Indexed As: Lowe and Lacrette v. Minister of Employment and Immigration

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Addy, J.

November 18, 1987.

Summary:

Lowe entered Canada without a visa in 1986 claiming refugee status. In April 1987 he was advised by the Immigration Appeal Board that he did not qualify as a refugee. Lowe married Lacrette on August 4, 1987. Lacrette, as a spouse, sought to sponsor Lowe and have him exempted from the visa requirements of the Immigration Act. This request was denied because an immigration official determined that the marriage was entered into primarily for the purpose of allowing Lowe to enter Canada as a member of the family class and not mainly for the purpose of living together as man and wife. Lowe and Lacrette applied (1) for an order prohibiting the Minister of Employment and Immigration from continuing with his inquiry regarding Lowe until a final decision was reached on the sponsorship application, (2) for an order quashing the decision of the immigration official that the marriage was one of convenience only, and (3) an order to compel the Minister to proceed with the sponsorship application.

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

Aliens - Topic 1287

Admission - Immigrants - Sponsorship - Members of the family class - Quashing decision of immigration official re - The Immigration Appeal Board informed Lowe that he did not qualify as a refugee - Lowe then married a Canadian - The couple applied to have Lowe exempted from the Immigration Act visa provisions (a sponsorship application) - An immigration official refused the request on the basis that the marriage was primarily to allow Lowe to enter Canada as a member of the family class - The couple applied to quash the decision of the immigration official - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused to quash the decision where there was no bias, bad faith, lack of jurisdiction or error of law on the part of the official - See paragraph 6.

Aliens - Topic 1290.2

Admission - Immigrants - Sponsorship - Application for - Reconsideration or reopening of - The Immigration Appeal Board informed Lowe that he did not qualify as a refugee - Lowe then married a Canadian - The couple applied to have Lowe exempted from the Immigration Act visa provisions (a sponsorship application) - An immigration official refused the request - The couple applied for mandamus to compel the Minister of Employment and Immigration to proceed with the sponsorship application - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused to grant mandamus because where dispensation of a visa requirement is refused there no longer exists a sponsorship application capable of being considered - See paragraph 7.

Aliens - Topic 1326

Admission - Refugees - Procedure - Inquiries - The Immigration Appeal Board informed Lowe that he did not qualify as a refugee - Lowe then married a Canadian - The couple applied to have Lowe exempted from the Immigration Act visa provisions (a sponsorship application) - An immigration official refused the request on the basis that the marriage was primarily to allow Lowe to enter Canada as a member of the family class - The couple applied to prohibit the Minister of Employment and Immigration from continuing with an inquiry respecting Lowe until final disposition of the sponsorship application - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused to prohibit the Minister from proceeding with the inquiry, where the Minister had a mandatory obligation under s. 46 of the Immigration Act to proceed - See paragraph 5.

Cases Noticed:

Reece v. Minister of Employment and Immigration et al., [1982] 2 F.C. 744, refd to. [para. 5].

Jairaj v. Smith, [1984] 1 F.C. 650, refd to. [para. 5].

Minister of Manpower and Immigration v. Taskiris, [1977] 2 F.C. 236, refd to. [para. 5].

Singh (Karnail) v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1986), 1 F.T.R. 307, refd to. [para. 5].

Nicholson v. Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Attorney General of Canada, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 311; 23 N.R. 410; 88 D.L.R.(3d) 671, refd to. [para. 6].

Singh (P.N.) v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1986), 3 F.T.R. 196, refd to. [para. 6].

Jiminez-Perez v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1983] 1 F.C. 163; 45 N.R. 149, refd to. [para. 6].

O'Grady v. Whyte, [1983] 1 F.C. 719; 42 N.R. 608, refd to. [para. 7].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, sect. 9(1) [para. 2]; sect. 45, sect. 46 [para. 5].

Counsel:

William Schabas, for the applicants;

Michel Lecours, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Philpot, Schabas, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicants;

F. Iacobucci, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.

This application was heard in Montréal, Quebec, on November 9, 1987, before Addy, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on November 18, 1987: