Ponnampalam v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-3644-95
Rothstein J.
27/6/96
6 pp.
Judicial review of immigration officer's decision applicant not meeting requirements for landing as application not filed in accordance with Immigration Regulations, 1978, s. 11.401(a)-S. 11.401 requiring member of deferred removal orders class (DROC) to apply for landing within 120 days after becoming member of class-No provision conferring jurisdiction on immigration officer to extend time-Although eligible for landing as member of DROC, applicant not applying until after expiration of 120-day limitation period-Application dismissed-As landing process under DROC regulations not engaging Charter rights, no overriding principle of fundamental justice conferring discretion on immigration officer to override 120-day limitation period-Loss of opportunity to apply for landing if application not filed within 120 days not going to applicant's right to life, liberty, security of person-Assuming deportation engaging liberty interest, inability to apply for landing under DROC regulations not same as deportation-Process leading to deportation order may engage Charter, s. 7, but not DROC decision alone-Question certified: Does immigration officer have discretion to extend time for filing application, either pursuant to principles of natural justice or fundamental justice if applicant filing application after 120-day period prescribed by regulations-Immigration Regulations, 1978, SOR/78-172, s. 11.401(a) (as enacted by SOR/94-681, s. 3)-Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 7.