Federal appeal | Immigration
Selection and admission
Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement could not amend act of Parliament
Plaintiff applied for permanent residence as investor. Before application was processed Government of Canada introduced legislation terminating pending investor applications. Legislation provided that applicants had no legal recourse against Government of Canada in respect of terminated applications. Plaintiff brought proposed class action claiming compensation for out-of-pocket expenses and damages for loss of opportunity. Defendant brought motion to strike out claim. Motion was granted. Plaintiff appealed. Appeal dismissed. International treaties and conventions were not part of Canadian law unless they had been implemented by statute. Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement between Canada and Russia had not been implemented by any statute and was not part of domestic law of Canada and could not amend act of Parliament.
Sin v. R. (Jan. 20, 2016, F.C.A., Wyman W. Webb J.A., Richard Boivin J.A., and Yves de Montigny J.A., A-142-15) Decision at 250 A.C.W.S. (3d) 564 was affirmed. 263 A.C.W.S. (3d) 184.
Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement could not amend act of Parliament
Plaintiff applied for permanent residence as investor. Before application was processed Government of Canada introduced legislation terminating pending investor applications. Legislation provided that applicants had no legal recourse against Government of Canada in respect of terminated applications. Plaintiff brought proposed class action claiming compensation for out-of-pocket expenses and damages for loss of opportunity. Defendant brought motion to strike out claim. Motion was granted. Plaintiff appealed. Appeal dismissed. International treaties and conventions were not part of Canadian law unless they had been implemented by statute. Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement between Canada and Russia had not been implemented by any statute and was not part of domestic law of Canada and could not amend act of Parliament.
Sin v. R. (Jan. 20, 2016, F.C.A., Wyman W. Webb J.A., Richard Boivin J.A., and Yves de Montigny J.A., A-142-15) Decision at 250 A.C.W.S. (3d) 564 was affirmed. 263 A.C.W.S. (3d) 184.
