A-634-78
Minister of Employment and Immigration
(Appellant)
v.
Shirley Myers (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Pratte, Heald and Le Dain JJ.—
St. John's, April 18, 1980.
Immigration — Sponsorship — Right of appeal — Appeal
from decision of Immigration Appeal Board allowing respond
ent's appeal from rejection of her application for admission
into Canada of her husband and children — Respondent
eligible under the Regulations to sponsor the admission of her
husband and children despite the fact that she was not a
resident of Canada at the time of the application — When
respondent commenced her appeal to Immigration Appeal
Board, all Canadian citizens who had unsuccessfully spon
sored the admission of a relative mentioned in the Regulations
had a right of appeal to that Board whether or not they were
residents and met the other requirements of the Act or Regu
lations — Appeal dismissed — Immigration Appeal Board
Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-3, s. 17 — Immigration Sponsorship
Appeals Order, SOR/67-522 — Immigration Regulations,
Part I, SOR/67-434.
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
L. S. Holland for appellant.
Denis Barry for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
appellant.
Barry & Smyth, St. John's, for respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: This is an appeal from a decision of
the Immigration Appeal Board which, exercising
its power to grant special relief under section 17 of
the Immigration Appeal Board Act, R.S.C. 1970,
c. I-3, (now repealed), allowed an appeal made by
the respondent from the rejection of the applica
tion she had made for the admission into Canada
of her husband and children.
The only attack made against the decision of the
Board is that it did not have jurisdiction in the
matter because the respondent, being not a resi-
dent of Canada at the time of the application, was
not eligible, under the Regulations, to sponsor the
admission of her husband and children. According
to counsel for the appellant, section 17 of the
Immigration Appeal Board Act gave a right of
appeal only to those persons who met the require
ments of the Regulations concerning sponsors. We
do not agree. Section 17 gave to all persons who
had, in fact, sponsored the admission of a relative
the right to appeal from the decision of the immi
gration authorities either that the relative was not
a person who could be sponsored or that the
sponsor did not meet the requirements of the Act
and Regulations. This unlimited right of appeal
was restricted, by an Order in Council' adopted
pursuant to the last sentence of section 17, to
Canadian citizens in respect of the categories of
relatives described in paragraphs (a) to (h) of
section 31(1) of the Immigration Regulations,
Part I, SOR/67-434. When the respondent com
menced her appeal to the Immigration Appeal
Board, in January 1978, all Canadian citizens who
had unsuccessfully sponsored the admission of a
relative mentioned in the Regulations had a right
of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board wheth
er or not they were residents of Canada and met
the other requirements of the Act or Regulations
concerning sponsors.
For these reasons, the appeal will be dismissed.
' Immigration Sponsorship Appeals Order, P.C. 1967-
] 956—SOR/67-522.
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.