Prassad v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, (1989) 93 N.R. 81 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: November 28, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1989), 93 N.R. 81 (SCC);[1989] 1 SCR 560;1989 CanLII 131 (SCC);[1989] ACS no 25;93 NR 81;36 Admin LR 72;[1989] 3 WWR 289;57 DLR (4th) 663;[1989] SCJ No 25 (QL)

Prassad v. MEI (1989), 93 N.R. 81 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Madhur Lata Prassad v. Minister of Employment and Immigration

(No. 19608)

Indexed As: Prassad v. Minister of Employment and Immigration

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ.

March 23, 1989.

Summary:

Prassad, a citizen of Fiji, came to Canada as a visitor in 1975. She remained on a Minister's permit until 1982, when she was deported. While in Canada she was convicted of several criminal offences. In 1984 she reentered Canada and became the subject of an inquiry before an adjudicator under s. 27(3) of the Immigration Act, 1976. She sought an adjournment to pursue a request for a Minister's permit pursuant to s. 37(1) of the Act. The adjudicator refused the adjournment, proceeded with the inquiry and issued a deportation order. Prassad applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a one paragraph unreported judgment, dismissed her application. The court considering itself bound by its previous jurisprudence, held that the adjudicator did not err in refusing to grant the adjournment. Prassad applied for leave to appeal.

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a decision reported 60 N.R. 232, allowed her application and granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada, per Sopinka, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer and La Forest, concurring), dismissed the appeal. The court affirmed that the adjudicator did not err in refusing the adjournment.

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting (Wilson, J., concurring), would have allowed the appeal.

Aliens - Topic 1607

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigrants - Deportation - Deportation order - Power of adjudicator where application made for Minister's permit - The Supreme Court of Canada held that an adjudicator on an immigration inquiry under s. 27(3) of the Immigration Act, 1976, has a discretion to grant or refuse an adjournment to allow the subject of the inquiry to apply for a Minister's permit under s. 37 of the Act - The court discussed the adjudicator's discretion, referred to the duty of an adjudicator in considering whether to adjourn, and mentioned factors he might want to consider in exercising his discretion.

Cases Noticed:

Widmont v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1984] 2 F.C. 274; 56 N.R. 198 (C.A.), consd. [paras. 8, 20, 26, 36, 56, 66].

Prassad v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 2 F.C. 81; 60 N.R. 232, refd to. [para. 8].

Ramawad v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 375; 18 N.R. 69, dist. [paras. 15, 26, et seq.].

Cedarvale Tree Services Ltd. and Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, Re (1971), 22 D.L.R.(3d) 40, refd to. [para. 18].

Pierre v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1978] 2 F.C. 849; 21 N.R. 91, refd to. [para. 18].

Tam v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1983] 2 F.C. 31 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Tsakiris v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration, [1977] 2 F.C. 236; 15 N.R. 39 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Lodge v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1979] 1 F.C. 775; 25 N.R. 437, refd to. [para. 24].

Han v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1984] 1 F.C. 976; 52 N.R. 274, refd to. [para. 24].

Laneau v. Rivard, [1978] 2 F.C. 319, consd. [paras. 26, 35, 48].

Nesha v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1982] 1 F.C. 42, consd. [paras. 26, 36, 48].

Louhisdon v. Employment and Immigration Canada, [1978] 2 F.C. 589; 24 N.R. 457, consd. [paras. 26, 32, 49, 59].

Oloko v. Employment and Immigration Canada, [1978] 2 F.C. 593; 24 N.R. 463, consd. [paras. 26, 51-59, 63, 65].

Murray v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1979] 1 F.C. 518; 23 N.R. 344, consd. [paras. 26, 55-59].

Stalony v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1980), 36 N.R. 609, refd to. [para. 26].

Jiminez-Perez v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1983] 1 F.C. 163; 45 N.R. 149, aff'd [1984] 2 S.C.R. 565; 56 N.R. 215, refd to. [para. 64].

Beeston v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1982), 41 N.R. 260 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-2, sect. 7(1)(h) [paras. 27, 43]; sect. 8 [paras. 47, 49, 54].

Immigration Act, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, sect. 27(2) [paras. 13, 14]; sect. 27(2)(h) [paras. 4, 10]; sect. 27(3) [paras. 5, 10, 16, 33, 37]; sect. 29(1) [para. 14]; sect. 29(5) [paras. 23, 57]; sect. 30(1) [para. 14]; sect. 31(1) [para. 10]; sect. 32(6) [paras. 7, 10]; sect. 37 [paras. 19, 21, 33, 40, 59, 66]; sect. 37(1) [para. 1 et seq.]; sect. 37(2) [paras. 10, 63]; sect. 37(4) [para. 10]; sect. 37(6) [para. 3]; sect. 43(1), sect. 45(1) [para. 23]; sect. 57(1) [paras. 4, 10]; sect. 113 [para. 11]; sect. 113(e) [para. 19]; sect. 115(2) [paras. 6, 39, 41, 61, 64].

Immigration Act Regulations, Part I, SOR/73-29, sect. 3C(1) [para. 27]; sect. 3D(2) [paras. 28, 44]; sect. 3G(d) [paras. 29-30, 31, 44, 45-46, 47, 54].

Immigration Act Regulations, S.O.R./78-172, sect. 27(3) [para. 57]; sect. 35(1) [paras. 12, 16, 19, 20, 42, 57, 65].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Wydrzynski, Christopher James, Canadian Immigration Law and Procedure (1983), pp. 265 [para. 19]; 266 [para. 37]; 350 [para. 63]; 352 [para. 48].

Counsel:

Andrew J.A. McKinley, for the appellant;

H.J. Wruck, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Rothe & Co., Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Department of Justice, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 28, 1988, before Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé and Sopinka, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on March 23, 1989, including the following opinions:

Sopinka, J. (Dickson, C.J.C., McIntyre, Lamer and La Forest, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 38;

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., dissenting (Wilson, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 39 to 67.