A-251-75
Dropatie Hylatchmie Ramjit (Applicant)
v.
Minister of Manpower and Immigration
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Thurlow and Urie JJ. and
MacKay D.J.—Toronto, June 20, 1975.
Judicial review—Citizenship and immigration—Deporta-
tion—Document marked "Exhibit A" not direction pursuant
to which inquiry held—Non-compliance with Immigration
Inquiries Regulations, Rule 7(b)=No indication that direction
issued by proper party—Immigration Inquiries Regulations,
Rule 7(b)—Federal Court Act, s. 28.
JUDICIAL review.
COUNSEL:
L. Kearley.for applicant.
E. A. Bowie for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Laurence Kearley, Toronto, for applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment
delivered orally in English by
THURLOW J.: In our opinion the document
marked "Exhibit A", which appears in the record
before us, does not correspond to what is described
in the transcript of proceedings as being the direc
tion pursuant to which the inquiry was being held
and which was then read. As the report of the
inquiry contains no note of the filing as "Exhibit
A" of the direction so read, it does not appear to
us to be established either that the document
marked "Exhibit A" was the direction pursuant to
which the inquiry was held or that Rule 7(b) of the
Immigration Inquiries Regulations was complied
with.
Moreover, in our opinion, nothing in the record
shows that the person who issued the direction that
was read at the inquiry was the Director of Immi
gration or a person authorized by the Minister to
act for the Director of Immigration.
The deportation order is therefore set aside.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.