Date: 19990729
Docket: IMM-659-99
BETWEEN:
NIRMAL SINGH BARN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Delivered orally from the Bench in Toronto, Ontario on
July 29, 1999)
LINDEN J.:
[1] The main issue in this case, as I see it, is whether the visa officer erred in giving no credit at all for experience gained as a supervisor in determining whether the applicant possessed sufficient experience and was qualified to perform any of the jobs which he had supervised.
[2] While teaching about a job, or supervising one, does not necessarily mean that the teacher or supervisor is always experienced and qualified to perform that job,1 it is imperative to analyze the jobs performed by an applicant in order to determine whether some credit should be given to a supervisor in relation to the jobs or positions being supervised. A supervisor normally does have to have some familiarity with the work being done in order to properly supervise it.
[3] In determining whether any credit should be given for supervision, the experience and skills required in the prospective position and of those the supervisor should, in appropriate cases, be broken down in order to see whether the supervisor"s experience has furnished him or her with any useful skills for the performance of the prospective job.2
[4] This was not done in this case, and, hence, the visa officer failed to consider important, relevant evidence. This failure warrants the intervention of this Court.
[5] In light of these reasons, I would not deal with the other issues raised by the parties.
[6] In the result the application is allowed, the decision of the visa officer is vacated, and the matter is remitted to be determined by a different visa officer in accordance with these reasons.
"A.M. Linden"
JUDGE
TORONTO, ONTARIO
July 29, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: NIRMAL SINGH BARN |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
| DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1999 |
| PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO |
| REASONS FOR ORDER BY: LINDEN J. |
DATED: THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1999
APPEARANCES: Mr. M. Max Chaudhary
For the Applicant
Mr. Michael Beggs
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Chaudhary Law Office
Barristers & Solicitors
255 Duncan Mill Road
Suite 405
Toronto, Ontario
M3B 3H9
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date:19990729
Docket: IMM-659-99
Between:
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
__________________
1See Abassi v. M.C.I., IMM-478-98 (August 21, 1998) at pages 7-8; reproduced at the Respondent"s Appeal Record, pages 44 - 45.
2 See especially Pinto v. M.C.I. [1991] 1 F.C. 619 (T.D.). In that case, MacKay J. wrote that:
What this implies, in my view, is that although in strict definitional terms, a teacher is not a child care worker, to the extent that the skills required of a teacher are similar to those required of a child care worker, then some credit must be given for "experience" with these skills, particularly where the duties of employment are specifically set out. If the employment offered had been strictly in terms of one of the particular CCDO classifications, experience as a teacher may well have been irrelevant. However, when the employment offered contains enumerated duties including aspects from several occupational classifications, then an assessment which relates only to the defined classifications constitutes a failure to assess experience relevant to the employment intended to be pursued.
Email this Content