Wong v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-3366-96
Reed J.
14/1/98
15 pp.
Application for judicial review of visa officer's decision denying applicant's application for permanent residence on behalf of himself, wife, son and daughter, on basis daughter, born with Down's syndrome, mentally retarded, and, in opinion of two medical officers, specialized educational services and vocational training she would require might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demands on social services in Canada-In July 1995 report, designated medical practitioner who had examined daughter in Hong Kong stated daughter had Down's syndrome, had attended special school since age 6, capable of self-care and somewhat inarticulate-Also, clinical psychologist in Hong Kong recommended she should remain in special education and perhaps have sheltered workshop placement after leaving school; added family had pledged full financial support so that no institutional care would be required at any time-In August 1995, visa officer determined applicant qualified as landed immigrant under self-employed criteria-Personal net worth of $3 million-Visa officer found applicant had successfully owned and operated businesses in Hong Kong and would have ability to establish business in Canada of benefit to Canadian economy-Applicant and wife found to be exceptional parents with respect to care and involvement with daughter-Visa officer did not consider it her responsibility to review opinion on merits, either with respect to medical diagnosis or opinion on "excessive demand"-Did not forward letter from Board of Education where applicant intended to locate stating rarely waiting list for special education classes in that community-In June 1996, visa officer informed applicant of medical notification (concluding "excessive demand") and advised him additional medical information could be submitted through designated doctor who had originally examined daughter in Hong Kong-Applicant unable to respond in time given to do so and in view of fact had not received information necessary in order to respond-In absence of response, applicant was advised application refused-In opinion of two medical officers, daughter's level of retardation such that developmentally trainable, thus would be eligible for and require special social services such as specialized educational services and vocational training if granted landing-As services in high demand, short supply and costly, admission to Canada could reasonably be expected to create excessive demand-Standard applied by medical officers: assessed whether person eligible for social services identified, not whether likely she would apply for them or receive them-Issues whether applicant given adequate opportunity to respond to assessment daughter's admission would cause excessive demands on social services; whether departmental medical officers erred in refusing to consider daughter's particular situation-In present case, non-disclosure of requested information (concerning basis on which opinion rendered) constituted breach of natural justice-Non-disclosure herein left matter of payment for services unexplored: under applicable Developmental Services Regulations of Ontario, Director determines whether person eligible and whether able to contribute to all or any part of cost thereof-Extent to which individuals expected to pay for services, if they can do so, relevant in context of opinion assessing "excessive demand" by reference to cost to public purse-Furthermore, under Immigration Act, s. 19(1)(a)(ii), admission of individual to be assessed in determining whether excessive demands might arise-Therefore, provision requiring consideration of individual's particular circumstances, including, in this case, applicant's offer to set up trust fund-Incongruity between admitting someone as permanent resident because had considerable financial resources but refusing to take them into account when assessing admissibility of dependant-Particularly true if Canadian residents must pay for social services if can afford to do so-Application allowed-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, s. 19(1)(a)(ii) (as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 11).