Federal Court


Applicant was liable for his own failure

Applicant sought judicial review of decision of commissioner who denied applicant’s request to re-open his file applying for refugee status in Canada. Applicant had moved home and alleged that he had informed authorities of this. Despite move he accepted that he received some correspondence from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, but not notice of hearings which were also sent to his lawyer who had been relieved of his functions by court on grounds of being unable to communicate with client. Client eventually contacted lawyer 19 months later to know progress of his file. Application denied. Applicant demonstrated serious failures to remain abreast of proceedings and was cause of his own misfortune. Applicant was liable for his own failure and would receive pre-removal risk assessment where he could state his case against deportation.

Garcia v. Canada

(Ministre de la Citoyennete et de L’immigration) (July 22, 2011, F.C., Harrington J., File No. IMM-6957-10) Reasons in French. 204 A.C.W.S. (3d) 872 (7 pp.).

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?