PRACTICE |
Variation of Time |
Hu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-431-00
Hargrave P.
24/7/00
6 pp.
Motion by respondent for extension of time to file affidavit in application for judicial review of visa officer's (VO) decision who, on processing application for permanent residence, miscalculated credit for applicant's formal education (in applying concept of degree in related discipline) --Motion denied--In predecessor proceeding, respondent had consented to applicant's application as VO clearly had made incorrect assessment of applicant's education, and matter was referred to new VO without specific instructions on how to handle application--However, new VO clearly made same error--In interim, in Dai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2000] F.C.J. No. 512 (T.D.) (QL), very similar case decided in favour of applicant--Repeat error resulted in present judicial review application--Respondent recognized second VO had again erred and sought, by motion, to have judicial review application allowed, application for permanent residence to be done again and put before third VO--Campbell J., only noting lack of consent, refused to allow motion--Present motion then filed--Time extensions governed by well- established law: underlying consideration doing justice between parties; applicant must account for delay, show arguable case, application would suffer prejudice without extension and respondent would suffer no prejudice if extension granted--Respondent herein, by requesting third assessment, has effectively admitted no arguable case--Not all of delay accounted for--Respondent would not suffer any prejudice, but applicant would, in terms of wasted time and money--Finally, justice would not be done if extension granted.