Date: 19990602
Docket: IMM-3516-98
BETWEEN:
NADIA KAZANTSEVA and PETRO KAZANTSEV
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Delivered from the bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Wednesday, June 2, 1999)
LEMIEUX J.:
[1] This judicial review application, authorized pursuant to paragraph 82.1(1) of the Immigration Act, (the Act) challenges a decision of S. Bland, Immigration Officer, (I.O.) refusing the request of the applicants, pursuant to subsection 114(2) of the Act, for the granting on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, of an exemption from the visa requirements of section 9(1) of that Act.
[2] The applicants in their written argument, urge two grounds: (1) the I.O. fettered his discretion by imposing a rigid requirement which was inconsistent with the intent of the Act citing the decision of Pinard J., Muse v. in Canada, 22 Imm L.R.(2d) 276 and (2)the failure of the I.O. to take into account the best interest of their child born in Canada.
[3] At to the first ground, I am satisfied Muse, supra, has no application to the case at bar. Based on the applicants submissions, the I.O. found no humanitarian and compassionate grounds because the applicants would not suffer unusual, undeserved or disproportionate hardship if they were required to leave Canada. This test was sanctioned by Strayer J., as he then was, in Vidal v. Canada, 13 Imm L.R.(2d) 123 at 133. See also Shah v. M.E.I. 170 N.R. 238 (F.C.A.) for the overall perspective of section 114(2) of the Act.
[4] As to the second ground, on examination of the record and, in particular, the written submission of the applicant to the I.O, their representations at their interview, the I.O's notes of the interview and his recommendations and rationale, I am satisfied the I.O. took into account the best interests of the applicants' child and weighed that element with other relevant considerations. In so doing, the I.O. acted in accordance with statutory requirements as interpreted by the Federal Court of Appeal see, Langer v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (C.F.A.) 184 N.R. 230 and Baker v. M.E.I. (F.C.A.) [1997] 2 F.C. 127.
[5] In oral argument before me, counsel for the applicants urged that the I.O.'s decision was patently unreasonable for lack of any evidentiary basis. Again, my examination of the entire record leads me to the conclusion that this argument has no merit.
[6] For these reasons, this application for judicial review is dismissed. This case raises no serious question of general importance.
"François Lemieux"
Judge
Toronto, Ontario
June 2, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-3516-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: NADIA KAZANTSEVA and PETRO KAZANTSEV
Applicants
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: LEMIEUX J.
DATED: WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1999
APPEARANCES: Mr. Peter Krochak
For the Applicants
Ms. Ursula Kaczmarczyk
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Barristers and Solicitors
250 Merton Street, Suite 402
Toronto, Ontario
| M4S 1B1 For the Applicants |
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19990602
Docket: IMM-3516-98
Between:
PETRO KAZANTSEV
Applicants
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
Email this Content