Tong v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-2565-96
Heald D.J.
31/10/97
5 pp.
Judicial review challenging continued processing of application for permanent residence-No final decision made on application because no final medical opinion on applicant's condition rendered-Medical examinations disclosing applicant suffering from chronic active hepatitis resulting in fibrosis of liver, abnormal liver functions-Applicant advised two medical officers finding him medically inadmissible to Canada-Given 60 days to provide any new medical information, submissions in response-Applicant denied copy of medical file-(1) Whether visa officer able to assess applicant for permanent residence if not having access to complete medical file in respect of applicant alleged to have medical condition resulting in refusal of application for permanent residence-(2) Whether applicant denied procedural fairness-(1) Applicant relying on Ismaili v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 29 Imm. L.R. (2d) 1 (F.C.T.D.), wherein stated visa officer, wholly apart from decision of medical officers, obliged to consider whether applicant's medical condition would place excessive demands on health, social services; visa officer without second guessing medical, diagnostic opinion, must consider all of available evidence-Parliament placing decision-making authority for medical inadmissibility in hands of medical officers-Once medical officer forming opinion, visa officer not having authority to alter that opinion which is binding upon him-Not necessary for visa officer to review medical file-(2) Applicant submitting unable to respond to generalized statement of existence of medical condition without provision of particulars of condition-Applicant given full opportunity to respond to medical assessment-Allowed four months to respond thereto-Substance of adverse opinion concerning medical condition disclosed-Circumstances satisfying test in Education Board v. Rice, [1911] A.C. 179 (H.L.): "They can obtain information in any way they think best, always giving a fair opportunity to those who are parties in controversy for correcting or contradicting any relevant statement prejudicial to their view".