Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

Henry Global Immigration Services v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )

IMM-2306-98

Gibson J.

26/11/98

14 pp.

Application for judicial review of alleged decision made by Canadian Consulate General in Hong Kong-Decision-maker advising applicant all correspondence regarding its clients sent directly to their residential addresses-Applicant's clients applicants for landing in Canada then resident, in most if not all cases, in People's Republic of China-Alleged decision dated April 24, 1998-Applicant consultant in immigration matters with client-base consisting of persons seeking permanent residence in Canada, virtually all citizens of People's Republic of China-Consulate General receiving number of complaints, alleged complaints, against applicant from clients, former clients-Alleged decision to deal only with applicant's clients at home addresses, not to correspond with applicant taken without acknowledging applicant's concerns-Decision-maker acting as "federal board, commission or other tribunal" when writing letter of April 24, 1998 to applicant-Letter not merely informational-As between respondent, applicant, decision reflected in letter of April 24, 1988, disposed of "substantive question" placed before respondent by applicant-Letter constituting reviewable decision-Applicant person "directly affected" by "decision" under Federal Court Act, s. 18.1(1)-"Decision" under review precluding, seriously impeding applicant from performing advisory role to applicants for landing-Raising justiciable issue-Applicant having standing to bring application for judicial review-Only reviewable error alleged on behalf of applicant decision-maker failed to observe principle of natural justice, procedural fairness, other procedure required by law to observe-Content of duty of fairness herein minimal-No reviewable error made by respondent in arriving at decision under review-Application dismissed-Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.1 (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5).

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.