Tunda v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immgration )
IMM-980-97
Teitelbaum J.
11/6/99
34 pp.
Application for judicial review of deportation order made against applicant following attempt to enter Canada under false identity-Only point of importance whether senior immigration officer made error of fact or law or acted without jurisdiction or contrary to rules of natural justice or procedural fairness so as to justify intervention by Court-Applicant alleged denied access to services of lawyer; denied right to claim refugee status before deportation order made; deportation order made contrary to Act, s. 23(4) since no report prepared on applicant as required by Act, s. 20-Application dismissed-S. 20 report was prepared-Applicant had ample opportunity to claim refugee status-Examination of applicant at port of entry administrative process not giving rise to right to counsel-Decision applicant fell within ss. 23(4) and 19(2)(d) and did not belong to another inadmissible class not unreasonable-Amendments to Immigration Act by S.C. 1995, c. 15 and Constitution Act, 1985 (1985 Representation Act, S.C. 1986, c. 8, providing new method of determining number of representatives of each province in House of Commons) valid-In view of analysis by British Columbia Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in Campbell v. Canada (Attorney General) ([1988] 2 W.W.R. 650 (S.C.); affd by C.A.), and fact Supreme Court denied leave to appeal ([1988] 6 W.W.R. lxviii), it follows Constitution Act, 1985 entirely valid and, this being the case, Canadian Parliament, and in particular House of Commons, validly constituted-Appointment of immigration officer therefore entirely valid and exercise of powers conferred on him by Immigration Act also valid-Appointment of two judges of Supreme Court of Canada as Deputy Governor General valid pursuant to Part VII of 1947 Letters Patent, as are legislation assented to by them-Even read in conjunction with Part VIII of 1947 Letters Patent, nothing in wording of Part VII of said Letters Patent authorizing Court to conclude any limitation exists on appointment of SCC judges as Deputy Governors General-These Parts designed for entirely different reasons and Part VIII of Letters Patent not limitation on Part VII of said Letters-Nothing to prevent Governor General of Canada delegating to one of his or her Deputies power of royal assent conferred on him by Constitution Act, 1867, s. 55-Further, Judges Act, s. 57 expressly envisaging possibility of judge holding said office of Deputy Attorney General-When acting as Deputy Attorney General, SCC judge does nothing likely to affect rule of judicial independence-Further, constitutional convention prohibiting Governor General or his Deputy from refusing to give royal assent-SCC judges authorized to act as Deputy Governors General-Further, based on presumption legislation constitutional plaintiff did not submit evidence challenged legislation was unconstitutional-Plaintiff's argument all Canadian legislation unconstitutional because adopted by unconstitutionally constituted Parliament purely academic since in fact said legislation will have to continue being applied, under rule of law: Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721-Entirely tardy, wrongful and dilatory for counsel for plaintiff to ask SCC Chief Justice be called as witness-Immigration Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-2, ss. 19(2)(d), 20 (am. by S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 12), 23 (am. by S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 12; 1995, c. 15, s. 3)-Representation Act, 1985, S.C. 1986, c. 8-Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 3 (am. by Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.), schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982, No. 1 [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 5], s. 55-Judges Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. J-1, s. 57-Letters Patent creating the office of Governor General of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 31, Parts VII and VIII.