Federal Appeal

Constitutional Law

No obligation on board to structure hearing so constitutional arguments heard last

Applicant from Saint Vincent and Grenadines, while living in Canada without status, had brain tumor removed and as result suffered from hormonal deficiency. Applicant sought refugee status, and later applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. Board found that applicant not Convention Refugee or person in need of protection. Application for judicial review dismissed and following question certified: does board violate s. 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if it declines to postpone hearing based on risk to life where there is pending H&C application also based on risk to life? Applicant appealed. Applicant’s right to request adjournment so he could exhaust non-constitutional remedies did not create corresponding obligation on board to structure hearing so that applicant’s constitutional arguments were heard last. Consequence of board’s finding that applicant would not be at risk if he were removed was that his ss. 7 and 15(1) Charter claims lacked evidentiary foundation. It followed that it was not necessary to consider application judge’s analysis of Charter arguments.

Laidlow v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

(Oct. 10, 2012, F.C.A., Noel, Dawson and Stratas JJ.A., File No. A-77-12) Decision at 213 A.C.W.S. (3d) 444 was affirmed. 221 A.C.W.S. (3d) 942.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?