A-282-79
John Jordon (Applicant)
v.
Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Re-
spondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Heald JJ. and
Maguire D.J.—Edmonton, November 28, 1979.
Judicial review — Immigration — In circumstances in
which Inquiry had been reopened, Adjudicator had a duty not
only to inform applicant of possibility that the departure
notice would be revoked and replaced by a deportation order,
but also to give applicant the opportunity to make representa
tions on that point — Adjudicator failed to fulfil this duty and
therefore his order cannot stand — Federal Court Act, R.S.C.
1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
J. Robb for applicant.
R. J. Gilborn for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Harry Midgley, Edmonton, for applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: We are all of the view that this
section 28 application must succeed.
In the particular circumstances in which the
Inquiry had been reopened, the Adjudicator had
the duty, in our opinion, not only to inform the
applicant of the possibility that the departure
notice be revoked and replaced by a deportation
order, but also to give the applicant the opportu
nity to make representations on that point. This,
the Adjudicator failed to do and, for that reason,
we think that his order cannot stand.
The deportation order made against the appli
cant will therefore be set aside and the matter
referred back to the Adjudicator for decision, after
a new hearing, of the question whether a departure
notice or a deportation order should be issued
against the applicant.
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.