Date: 20060412
Docket: IMM-4706-05
Citation: 2006 FC 481
Ottawa, Ontario, April 12, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
MUHAMMAD JAVID AKHTER
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
OVERVIEW
[1] Thus Parliament has the right to adopt an immigration policy and to enact legislation prescribing the conditions under which non-citizens will be permitted to enter and remain in Canada. It has done so in the Immigration [and Refugee Protection] Act. ...
(Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chiarelli, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711, [1992] S.C.J. No. 27 (QL), at paragraph 27)
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 (Regulations), taken under the authority of paragraphs 14(2)(b) and (d) of theImmigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) implement Parliament's sovereign power to regulate admission to Canada. (De Guzman v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),[2005] 2 F.C.R. 162, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1557 (QL) at paragraphs 34-35.)
Do the terms "at the time of the application" limit the application of paragraph 117(9)(d) to the moment of the filing of the application for permanent residence?
A literal interpretation appears absurd. Restricting the interpretation of the terms "at the time of that application" in such a way would mean that an applicant could intentionally, not disclose his family situation and yet bear no consequence. Does it make inherent sense that family members not be mentioned and, for the family class designation to ensue nevertheless?
It is trite law that an interpretation leading to absurd consequences shall not be retained. The legislator is presumed to have the intention of avoiding such results in enacting a provision. (Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, [1998] S.C.J. No. 2 (QL), at paragraph 27; Cuskic v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] 2 F.C. 3 (C.A.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 1631 (QL), at paragraph 25)
JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
[2] This is an application pursuant to paragraph 72(1) of IRPA, for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Board), rendered on June 23, 2005 dismissing the Applicant's appeal of the decision to refuse the sponsorship application for permanent residence of his wife and daughter.
BACKGROUND
[3] The Applicant, Mr. Muhammad Javid Akhter, was born in Pakistan on August 1, 1963. He is the eldest son in a family of nine children. Since his father's death in 1995, he is the head of the family.
[4] Mr. Akhter applied for permanent residence in Canadaon April 30, 1997, at which time he was single. He was landed in Canada on May 9, 2000, having been sponsored by his brother. Meanwhile, on February 14, 1999, he married Neelofur Javid in Pakistan. They have a daughter, Bakhat Khush, born on January 1, 2000 and a son born in September 2002, both born in Pakistan. Their son is not affected by the decision of the Board as he was born after Mr. Akhter was admitted to Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada were informed of his existence in due time.
[5] Mr. Akhter did not advise Citizenship and Immigration Canada that he was married or that he had a daughter until a short while after he was admitted to Canada when he asked to sponsor his wife and daughter for permanent residence. On April 30, 2003, his wife and daughter's application for permanent residence was refused because, pursuant to paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations, they were not declared during his own permanent residence application process and therefore could not be examined.
[6] Mr. Akhter alleges that he did not declare his wife and daughter because his marriage was on the verge of divorce. There were serious conflicts with his wife and mother-in-law.
[7] Procedures were brought against Mr. Akhter to take away his permanent residence because of the misrepresentation or omission at the time of his immigration interview in early 2000 or his landing in Canada in May 2000. At a hearing before the Board on May 23, 2003, although the Board concluded that the removal order was valid in law, it found that there were sufficient humanitarian and compassionate grounds, based on the circumstances of the misrepresentation and the fact that a large part of Mr. Akhter's immediate family is in Canada, to warrant special relief from the removal order.
[8] On June 5, 2003, Mr. Akhter filed a Notice of appeal of the decision to refuse his wife and daughter's application for permanent residence. After the appeal was dismissed, Mr. Akhter filed the present application for judicial review on August 3, 2005.
DECISION UNDER REVIEW
[9] The Board dismissed Mr. Akhter's appeal of the decision refusing his wife and daughter's application for permanent resident as members of the family class. The Board found that paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations applies to Mr. Akhter's wife and daughter. They cannot therefore be considered members of the family class by virtue of their relationship to Mr. Akhter.
ISSUES
[10] This application raises the following two issues:
1. Is paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations unconstitutional, ultra vires and contrary to international instruments to which Canadais signatory?
2. Do the terms "at the time of the application" limit the application of paragraph 117(9)(d) to the moment of the filing of the application for permanent residence?
ANALYSIS
Legislative provisions
[11] Subsection 3(1) of IRPA sets out the objectives of the Act:
| 3. (1) The objectives of this Act with respect to immigration are
(a) to permit Canada to pursue the maximum social, cultural and economic benefits of immigration;
(b) to enrich and strengthen the social and cultural fabric of Canadian society, while respecting the federal, bilingual and multicultural character of Canada;
(b.1) to support and assist the development of minority official languages communities in Canada;
(c) to support the development of a strong and prosperous Canadian economy, in which the benefits of immigration are shared across all regions of Canada;
(d) to see that families are reunited in Canada;
(e) to promote the successful integration of permanent residents into Canada, while recognizing that integration involves mutual obligations for new immigrants and Canadian society;
(f) to support, by means of consistent standards and prompt processing, the attainment of immigration goals established by the Government of Canada in consultation with the provinces;
(g) to facilitate the entry of visitors, students and temporary workers for purposes such as trade, commerce, tourism, international understanding and cultural, educational and scientific activities;
(h) to protect the health and safety of Canadians and to maintain the security of Canadian society;
(i) to promote international justice and security by fostering respect for human rights and by denying access to Canadian territory to persons who are criminals or security risks; and
(j) to work in cooperation with the provinces to secure better recognition of the foreign credentials of permanent residents and their more rapid integration into society.
|
3. (1) En matière d'immigration, la présente loi a pour objet :
a) de permettre au Canada de retirer de l'immigration le maximum d'avantages sociaux, culturels et économiques;
b) d'enrichir et de renforcer le tissu social et culturel du Canada dans le respect de son caractère fédéral, bilingue et multiculturel;
b.1) de favoriser le développement des collectivités de langues officielles minoritaires au Canada;
c) de favoriser le développement économique et la prospérité du Canada et de faire en sorte que toutes les régions puissent bénéficier des avantages économiques découlant de l'immigration;
d) de veiller à la réunification des familles au Canada;
e) de promouvoir l'intégration des résidents permanents au Canada, compte tenu du fait que cette intégration suppose des obligations pour les nouveaux arrivants et pour la société canadienne;
f) d'atteindre, par la prise de normes uniformes et l'application d'un traitement efficace, les objectifs fixés pour l'immigration par le gouvernement fédéral après consultation des provinces;
g) de faciliter l'entrée des visiteurs, étudiants et travailleurs temporaires qui viennent au Canada dans le cadre d'activités commerciales, touristiques, culturelles, éducatives, scientifiques ou autres, ou pour favoriser la bonne entente à l'échelle internationale;
h) de protéger la santé des Canadiens et de garantir leur sécurité;
i) de promouvoir, à l'échelle internationale, la justice et la sécurité par le respect des droits de la personne et l'interdiction de territoire aux personnes qui sont des criminels ou constituent un danger pour la sécurité;
j) de veiller, de concert avec les provinces, à aider les résidents permanents à mieux faire reconnaître leurs titres de compétence et à s'intégrer plus rapidement à la société.
|
[12] Subsection 12(1) of IRPA states who can be a member of the family class:
| 12. (1) A foreign national may be selected as a member of the family class on the basis of their relationship as the spouse, common-law partner, child, parent or other prescribed family member of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident.
|
12. (1) La sélection des étrangers de la catégorie « regroupement familial » se fait en fonction de la relation qu'ils ont avec un citoyen canadien ou un résident permanent, à titre d'époux, de conjoint de fait, d'enfant ou de père ou mère ou à titre d'autre membre de la famille prévu par règlement.
|
[13] Subsection 13(1) of IRPA is concerned with the sponsorship of a member of the family class:
| 13. (1) A Canadian citizen or permanent resident may, subject to the regulations, sponsor a foreign national who is a member of the family class.
|
13. (1) Tout citoyen canadien et tout résident permanent peuvent, sous réserve des règlements, parrainer l'étranger de la catégorie « regroupement familial » .
|
[14] Subsection 14(1) of IRPA gives authority to adopt regulations, specifically in regards to classes of permanent resident or foreign nationals:
| 14. (1) The regulations may provide for any matter relating to the application of this Division, and may define, for the purposes of this Act, the terms used in this Division.
(2) The regulations may prescribe, and govern any matter relating to, classes of permanent residents or foreign nationals, including the classes referred to in section 12, and may include provisions respecting
(a) selection criteria, the weight, if any, to be given to all or some of those criteria, the procedures to be followed in evaluating all or some of those criteria and the circumstances in which an officer may substitute for those criteria their evaluation of the likelihood of a foreign national's ability to become economically established in Canada;
(b) applications for visas and other documents and their issuance or refusal, with respect to foreign nationals and their family members;
(c) the number of applications that may be processed or approved in a year, the number of visas and other documents that may be issued in a year, and the measures to be taken when that number is exceeded;
(d) conditions that may or must be imposed, varied or cancelled, individually or by class, on permanent residents and foreign nationals;
(e) sponsorships, undertakings, and penalties for failure to comply with undertakings;
(f) deposits or guarantees of the performance of obligations under this Act that are to be given by any person to the Minister; and
(g) any matter for which a recommendation to the Minister or a decision may or must be made by a designated person, institution or organization with respect to a foreign national or sponsor.
|
14. (1) Les règlements régissent l'application de la présente section et définissent, pour l'application de la présente loi, les termes qui y sont employés.
(2) Ils établissent et régissent les catégories de résidents permanents ou d'étrangers, dont celles visées à l'article 12, et portent notamment sur :
a) les critères applicables aux diverses catégories, et les méthodes ou, le cas échéant, les grilles d'appréciation et de pondération de tout ou partie de ces critères, ainsi que les cas où l'agent peut substituer aux critères son appréciation de la capacité de l'étranger à réussir son établissement économique au Canada;
b) la demande, la délivrance et le refus de délivrance de visas et autres documents pour les étrangers et les membres de leur famille;
c) le nombre de demandes à traiter et dont il peut être disposé et celui de visas ou autres documents à accorder par an, ainsi que les mesures à prendre en cas de dépassement;
d) les conditions qui peuvent ou doivent être, quant aux résidents permanents et aux étrangers, imposées, modifiées ou levées, individuellement ou par catégorie;
e) le parrainage, les engagements, ainsi que la sanction de leur inobservation;
f) les garanties à remettre au ministre pour le respect des obligations découlant de la présente loi;
g) les affaires sur lesquelles les personnes ou organismes désignés devront ou pourront statuer ou faire des recommandations au ministre sur les étrangers ou les répondants.
|
[15] Subsection 63(1) of IRPA states that a sponsor has a right to appeal a decision to refuse to issue a permanent resident visa to their family member:
| 63. (1) A person who has filed in the prescribed manner an application to sponsor a foreign national as a member of the family class may appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division against a decision not to issue the foreign national a permanent resident visa.
|
63. (1) Quiconque a déposé, conformément au règlement, une demande de parrainage au titre du regroupement familial peut interjeter appel du refus de délivrer le visa de résident permanent.
|
[16] Section 65 of IRPA states the following:
| 65. In an appeal under subsection 63(1) or (2) respecting an application based on membership in the family class, the Immigration Appeal Division may not consider humanitarian and compassionate considerations unless it has decided that the foreign national is a member of the family class and that their sponsor is a sponsor within the meaning of the regulations.
|
65. Dans le cas de l'appel visé aux paragraphes 63(1) ou (2) d'une décision portant sur une demande au titre du regroupement familial, les motifs d'ordre humanitaire ne peuvent être pris en considération que s'il a été statué que l'étranger fait bien partie de cette catégorie et que le répondant a bien la qualité réglementaire.
|
[17] Section 51 of the Regulations requires that someone seeking to become a permanent resident must inform the immigration officer at the port of entry of changes in their circumstances, including changes in their matrimonial status:
| 51. A foreign national who holds a permanent resident visa and is seeking to become a permanent resident at a port of entry must
(a) inform the officer if
(i) the foreign national has become a spouse or common-law partner or has ceased to be a spouse, common-law partner or conjugal partner after the visa was issued, or
(ii) material facts relevant to the issuance of the visa have changed since the visa was issued or were not divulged when it was issued; and
(b) establish, at the time of the examination, that they and their family members, whether accompanying or not, meet the requirements of the Act and these Regulations.
|
51. L'étranger titulaire d'un visa de résident permanent qui, à un point d'entrée, cherche à devenir un résident permanent doit :
a) le cas échéant, faire part à l'agent de ce qui suit :
(i) il est devenu un époux ou conjoint de fait ou il a cessé d'être un époux, un conjoint de fait ou un partenaire conjugal après la délivrance du visa,
(ii) tout fait important influant sur la délivrance du visa qui a changé depuis la délivrance ou n'a pas été révélé au moment de celle-ci;
b) établir, lors du contrôle, que lui et les membres de sa famille, qu'ils l'accompagnent ou non, satisfont aux exigences de la Loi et du présent règlement.
|
[18] Paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations is as follows:
| 117. (9) A foreign national shall not be considered a member of the family class by virtue of their relationship to a sponsor if
...
(d) subject to subsection (10), the sponsor previously made an application for permanent residence and became a permanent resident and, at the time of that application, the foreign national was a non-accompanying family member of the sponsor and was not examined.
|
117. (9) Ne sont pas considérées comme appartenant à la catégorie du regroupement familial du fait de leur relation avec le répondant les personnes suivantes :
[...]
d) sous réserve du paragraphe (10), dans le cas où le répondant est devenu résident permanent à la suite d'une demande à cet effet, l'étranger qui, à l'époque où cette demande a été faite, était un membre de la famille du répondant n'accompagnant pas ce dernier et n'a pas fait l'objet d'un contrôle.
|
[19] Subsection 117(10) of the Regulations (Regulations Amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2004-167) states:
| 117. (10) Subject to subsection (11), paragraph (9)(d) does not apply in respect of a foreign national referred to in that paragraph who was not examined because an officer determined that they were not required by the Act or the former Act, as applicable, to be examined.
|
117. (10) Sous réserve du paragraphe (11), l'alinéa (9)d) ne s'applique pas à l'étranger qui y est visé et qui n'a pas fait l'objet d'un contrôle parce qu'un agent a décidé que le contrôle n'était pas exigé par la Loi ou l'ancienne loi, selon le cas.
|
Standard of review
[20] The two issues in this application are concerned with the interpretation of the paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations and its application to the facts. They are therefore questions of mixed fact and law which point to a lower degree of deference. Although the Board has much expertise in the application of IRPA and the Regulations, it does not necessarily have more expertise than this Court in the interpretation of the law. Therefore, due to the factors of fact and law combined, the appropriate standard of review should be reasonableness simpliciter. (Dave v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 510, [2005] F.C.J. No. 686 (QL), at paragraph 4; Ly v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] 4 F.C. 658, 2003 FCT 527, [2003] F.C.J. No. 681 (QL), at paragraphs 17-20)
Is paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations unconstitutional, ultra vires and contrary to international instruments to which Canadais signatory?
[21] Although stare decisis does not apply to judgments made by judges of the same court, judicial comity commands that a decision must be followed unless there are strong reasons to depart from it. Strong reasons command that De Guzman, above be followed and not distinguished. (Dave, above, at paragraph 17.)
[22] In Chiarelli, above, at paragraph 27, it was held that :
Thus Parliament has the right to adopt an immigration policy and to enact legislation prescribing the conditions under which non-citizens will be permitted to enter and remain in Canada. It has done so in the Immigration [and Refugee Protection] Act. ...
The Regulations, taken under the authority of paragraphs 14(2)(b) and (d) of IRPA implement Parliament's sovereign power to regulate admission to Canada. (De Guzman, above, at paragraphs 34-35.)
[23] The family reunification objective is to promote that family members considered within the family class designation. To be considered members of the family class, therefore, it was Mr. Akhter's obligation to ensure that his family members were disclosed for the necessary procedures within that designation to be envisaged. (Collier v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 260 F.T.R. 266, 2004 FC 1209, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1445 (QL), at paragraph 33; Azizi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 354, [2005] F.C.J. No. 436, at paragraphs 36-37; Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) c. De Guzman, 2005 FC 1255, [2005] A.C.F. no 1520, at paragraph 25.) As stated by Mr. Justice Michael Kelen in De Guzman Guzman v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),[2005] 2 F.C.R. 162, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1557 (QL), at paragraph 38:
The objective of family reunification does not override, outweigh, supercede or trump the basic requirement that the immigration law must be respected, and administered in an orderly and fair manner. An applicant cannot be allowed to misrepresent her family members and marital status to circumvent the immigration law, and then challenge the validity of the family class law as ultra vires because it impedes the reunification of her family. Such a result would be contrary to the proper, fair and orderly administration of the immigration law.
[24] To paraphrase Chiarelli, above, at paragraph 27, there is nothing fundamentally unjust about a mandatory conclusion that an applicant is not a member of the family class. Mr. Akhter is not a victim of a governmental act or omission breaching his fundamental rights, but finds himself prevented from sponsoring his family members because he concealed information requested by the authorities for the assessment of his application for permanent residence. (De Guzman, above, at paragraph 66; Azizi, above, at paragraph 29, Dave, above, at paragraph 16) In law in general, the courts have been more than reluctant to condone an applicant's own faulty acts. (Bury v. Murray (1894), 24 S.C.R. 77; R. v. Gombosh Estate, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 415, [1986] S.C.J. No. 22 (QL), at paragraph 20)
[25] It is unnecessary to address humanitarian and compassionate considerations to comply with the principles of fundamental justice. As stated in section 65 of IRPA, the Board can only consider humanitarian and compassionate factors in an appeal of an application to sponsor a member of the family class when it has concluded that the individual being sponsored is in fact a member of the family class, which is not the case in the present application. (Yen v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1307, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1583 (QL), at paragraph 20.) An application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, pursuant to subsection 25(1) of IRPA, however, remains open to Mr. Akhter's wife and daughter. If such an application is granted, Mr. Akhter and his wife and daughter could be reunited. (Chen v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 678, [2005] F.C.J. No. 852 (QL), at paragraph 18)
[26] In fact, it would offend the principles of fundamental justice to allow an applicant to sponsor the family members he concealed in order to secure his application for landing. (De Guzman, above, at paragraphs 67 and 70; Flores v. Canada(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 854, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1073 (QL), at paragraphs 49-50) Mr. Akhter's rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are not engaged.
[27] In the present case, international instruments referred to by Mr. Akhter do not alter this conclusion. How could a family class designation be applied for someone who has not specified family members? Each right coexists with an obligation. In this case, to divulge a family situation. Furthermore, paragraph 3(3)(f) of IRPA incorporates international human rights conventions in Canadian law, if specific legislation to this effect is enacted. Unincorporated international law is helpful in circumscribing the context of a particular provision, no more. (Baker c. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, [1999] S.C.J. No. 39 (QL), at paragraphs 69-70; Rahaman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 3 F.C. 537, 2002 FCA 89, [2002] F.C.J. No. 302, at paragraphs 35-36; Flores, above, at paragraph 45)
[28] Paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations is thus valid. It is not unconstitutional, ultra vires or contrary to international law.
Do the terms "at the time of the application" limit the application of paragraph 117(9)(d) to the moment of the filing of the application for permanent residence?
[29] Mr. Akhter's argument has the following consequences, well illustrated by his own situation. An applicant for landing, at the very time he files his application, is single. He marries some time later, or even the next day. Even though he is obliged by law to tell the truth (subsection 16(1) of IRPA) and must show the visa officer that he complies with all statutory and regulatory requirements (subsection 11(1) of IRPA), he conceals information that would impeach the outcome of his application. According to him, it is unfair that he must now bear the consequences of failing to disclose the existence of the family members he now wants to sponsor.
[30] A literal interpretation appears absurd. Restricting the interpretation of the terms "at the time of the application" in such a way would mean that an applicant could intentionally, not disclose his family situation and yet bear no consequence. Does it make inherent sense that family members not be mentioned and, for the family class designation to ensue nevertheless?
[31] It is trite law that an interpretation leading to absurd consequences shall not be retained. The legislator is presumed to have the intention of avoiding such results in enacting a provision. (Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), above, at paragraph 27; Cuskic, above, at paragraph 25) When the law permits it, the most practical and efficient interpretation of the provision must be adopted even though, sometimes, the wording seems to suggest otherwise. ([1979] 1 S.C.R. 275">Berardinelli v. Ontario Housing Corp., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 275)
[32] So far, a majority of decisions from this Court have adopted the Minister's position that an application for landing is a continuing process which renders paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations applicable at all stages of the decision-making process. (Benjelloun c. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), 2005 CF 844, [2005] A.C.F. no 1069 (QL), at paragraph 12; Tallon v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1039, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1288 (QL), at paragraph 11; Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration) c. De Guzman, above, at paragraphs 22-23)
[33] Any other interpretation would appear remote from the objectives of paragraph 117(9)(d): an incentive to disclosing all relevant information and a protection of the integrity of the immigration process. It would allow applicants to circumvent the legislative provision so easily that the inherent logic of the legislator would be lost.
[34] The correct interpretation of the terms "at the time of the application" is to equate them with the phrase "in the course of that application" or "in the process of that application". An applicant is making an application from the day he files it to the day it is denied or granted. This interpretation logically flows from the requirement that the non-accompanying family member to whom paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations applies was not examined. If the filing of the application is the relevant time to assess the application of paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations, no foreign national would fall in the excluded category: he will be logically interviewed after the filing of the application, not before. This interpretation is supported by the addition of subsection 117(10) of the Regulations.
[35] Again, logic dictates that the "time of the application" within the meaning of paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations is the period following the filing of the application for permanent residence until its completion by the landing itself to allow the officer, anywhere in this period, to make a decision not to examine a non-accompanying foreign national.
CONCLUSION
[36] Paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations is an expression of Parliament's power to regulate admission to Canada. It is not unconstitutional, ultra vires nor contrary to IRPA or to the international instruments to which Canada is signatory. It does not deprive a foreign national from requesting the Minister to apply subsection 25(1) of IRPA in his favour on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Regulations applies throughout the immigration process, from the filing of the application to the landing proper. Otherwise, it would be deprived of any concrete and practical effect and could not be deemed remedial. (Section 12 of the Interpretation Act, R.C.S. 1985, c. I-21)
[37] As the Board committed no error in dismissing Mr. Akhter's appeal, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the decision of the Board. This application for judicial review should therefore be dismissed.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1. The judicial review be dismissed.
2. No serious question of general importance be certified.
"Michel M.J. Shore"
Email this Content