CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Judicial Review |
Stumf v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-5975-99
Simpson J.
30/10/00
16 pp.
Application for judicial review of decision by Immigration and Refugee Board denying applicants' motion to have refugee claims reopened--Board previously determined applicants' refugee claims abandoned due to failure to file personal information forms (PIFs), to appear at hearing to consider abandonment of claims--Applicants married couple, young child, citizens of Hungary--Arrived in Canada from Hungary on March 12, 1999, filed refugee claims on basis of persecution in Hungary because of "gypsy" heritage--Claims made with assistance of Judy Simms, who served as immigration consultant--Board not accepting statement in first affidavit that neither Ms. Simms nor applicants received hearing notice--Given defective, confused state of first affidavit, Board entitled to doubt it, look for evidence to corroborate applicants' failure to receive hearing notice--Board's decision on that issue not perverse--Board had discretion, but no obligation, to call for further evidence such as affidavit from Ms. Simms--Failure to do so not amounting to breach of natural justice--Ms. Simms received hearing notice, applicants not in touch with her between June 22 and abandonment hearing on August 4, 1999--Absent consent, quorum of two Board members required to consider abandonment of refugee claim--Requirement met herein--Board's decision on abandonment made by two Board members--Motion to reopen not covered by Immigration Act, s. 69.1 as requiring hearing by two Board members only for disposition of refugee claims on merits or decision on abandonment--Board having discretion to designate one member to hear motion--No principle of natural justice requiring two members of Board to make determination about proper notice--No reason why one member of Board cannot provide full, proper hearing on motion to reopen refugee claim following decision it has been abandoned--Applicants having no statutory right to have motion considered by two members of Board--No statutory requirement for formal written reasons under Act, s. 69.1(11) as Board not deciding merits of applicants' refugee claim--Board member's handwritten reasons met standards set in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817--"Reasonableness" appropriate standard of review--Correctness standard suggested by applicants' counsel not appropriate--Application dismissed--Question certified as to Board quorum when hearing motion to reopen refugee claims--Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 69.1 (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 18; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 60; 1999, c. 18, s. 96).