Raman v. Canada, (1999) 246 N.R. 370 (FCA)

• Judge: Linden, Robertson and McDonald, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 04, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 246 N.R. 370 (FCA)

Raman v. Can. (M.C.I.) (1999), 246 N.R. 370 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] N.R. TBEd. JN.035

Philman Abu Raman (appellant) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(A-30-97)

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

Federal Court of Appeal

Linden, Robertson and McDonald, JJ.A.

June 4, 1999.

Summary:

Raman arrived in Canada from Nigeria with a fraudulent Zimbabwean passport, stating that he was visiting a friend for a week. He indicated that he did not wish to make a refugee claim. When advised that he was being excluded, he confessed that he was Nigerian and claimed refugee status. A senior immigration officer held that she did not have jurisdiction to reopen the exclusion decision. Raman sought judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported at 125 F.T.R. 50, dismissed the application. Raman appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.

Editor's note: for a related decision in this matter see 100 F.T.R. 67.

Aliens - Topic 1701.1

Exclusion and expulsion - Immigration -Ex­clusion - Jurisdiction - Immigration of­fi­cer - Raman arrived in Canada, stating that he was visiting a friend - Subsequently, a hearing resulted in an exclusion order being issued against him - Raman sought to reopen the hearing to claim refugee status - An immigration officer held that she lacked jurisdiction to reopen the exclu­sion decision - The Fed­eral Court of Appeal agreed that the im­migration officer lacked jurisdiction, either at common law or under s. 7 of the Char­ter and s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, to reopen the exclu­sion decision - The appropriate process by which to contest a removal order was not to seek a reopening, but to seek judicial review under s. 44(1) of the Immigration Act.

Aliens - Topic 4061

Practice - Judicial review and appeals - General - [See Aliens - Topic 1701.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3193

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Administrative and noncriminal proceedings - Procedure not contrary to fundamental justice - [See Aliens - Topic 1701.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Canada (Attorney General) v. Symtron Systems Inc. (1999), 236 N.R. 143 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9, footnote 2].

Chandler v. Alberta Association of Ar­chi­tects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848; 99 N.R. 277; 101 A.R. 321; 70 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 62 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 9, foot­note 3].

Kaur v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration (1989), 104 N.R. 50; 10 Imm. L.R.(2d) 1 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 4].

Bains and James v. Minister of Employ­ment and Immigration (1989), 104 N.R. 184; 8 Imm. L.R.(2d) 165 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 4].

Gwala v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 242 N.R. 173 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14, foot­note 6].

R. v. Monney (I.) (1999), 237 N.R. 157; 119 O.A.C. 272 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 8].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2, sect. 44(1) [para. 9].

Counsel:

Barbara Jackman and Kevin MacTavish, for the appellant;

Lori Hendricks and Martin Anderson, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Jackman, Waldman & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 1, 1999, before Linden, Robertson and McDonald, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On June 4, 1999, Linden, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.