Abdi-Egeh v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-615-95
Gibson J.
29/6/95
5 pp.
Motion for production of materials and for extension of time to perfect application for leave on basis of alleged inability to adequately respond to decision -- Motion arising from judicial review of immigration officer's decision applicant not meeting eligibility criteria for Deferred Removal Orders Class (DROC) -- Applicant receiving letter of negative decision containing statement to effect applicant not meeting DROC criteria as applicant hindering or delaying removal from Canada; applicant claiming letter not constituting reasons for decision -- Although letter not constituting explanation of immigration officer's reasoning leading to adverse conclusion, such explanation not necessary to constitute "reasons": applicant receiving "reasons" for impugned decision-Applicant's statement had not received tribunal's written reasons erroneous -- Extension of time warranted as error innocent and shared by respondent -- Respondent contending Court should not grant order regarding production of materials as Privacy Act providing for due processing of same -- Not appropriate to delay judicial review for applicant to pursue Privacy Act relief as Privacy Act designed for different purposes, with own criteria and procedures (Muthulingam v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1991), 14 Imm. L.R. (2d) 36 (F.C.T.D.)) -- To allow Privacy Act procedure to be invoked to frustrate leave application regime contrary to Act, s. 82.1(8) provision judicial review to be determined in summary way without delay -- Resorting to "Gap rule" to achieve applicant's objective running counter to objectives of leave application regime -- Order for production rejected; order for extension granted -- Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 82.1(8) (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 28, s. 19; S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 73) -- Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21.