[1] In spite of the argument of counsel for the applicant, I am unable to agree that there has been a denial of procedural fairness in this case. The Visa Officer should have responded to the applicant's request for adjournment earlier than one day before the hearing. However, the applicant did not request the adjournment until 11 days before the hearing and there is no evidence that he tried to contact the Visa Office before being notified that his adjournment request had been denied. It appears he assumed his request for adjournment would be granted. However, in the material he received from the Visa Office, he was told that adjournments would only be granted for good reason and he failed to produce any apparent reason in this case. In any event, nothing done by the Visa Office entitled him to assume his adjournment request would be granted and it was his obligation to attend at the appointed time. There was no denial of procedural fairness. The judicial review will be dismissed.
"Marshall Rothstein"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5398-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Weidong Liu v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, BC
DATE OF HEARING: July 16, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER
FROM THE BENCH: ROTHSTEIN J.A. (ex officio)
APPEARANCES:
Dennis Tanack FOR APPLICANT
Emilia Pech FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Can-Achieve Consultants Ltd. FOR APPLICANT
Vancouver
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content