Chow v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-3600-98
Hargrave P.
27/11/98
5 pp.
Application for permission to serve, file additional affidavit containing documents obtained through Access to Information application-Additional affidavit material in response to affidavit filed by respondent of Elizabeth Klak, deposing she alone had decided matter on October 7, 1998 as set out in document entitled "H & C Review"-In June 1, 1998 document called "Subsection 27(2) Highlights" obtained through Access to Information Act application, Ms. Klak writing, "It is recommended that subject's in-Canada application for permanent residence be denied, and that he be asked to leave Canada"-Manager to whom document addressed endorsing concurrence on that document on June 2, 1998-Appears decision made at that point-Ignoring whether Ms. Klak mislead applicant, appears witness hoisted on petard of own making, namely mindless use of impersonal passive phrase "It is recommended" in June 1, 1998 document, which according to Sir Ernest Gowers, Editor, Second Edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage, Oxford University Press 1968, "often amounts to a pusillanimous shrinking from responsibility", and by concurrence of manager endorsed below recommendation-Documents also point to material requested, received by Ms. Klak from Hong Kong, but not included in documents obtained by applicant, including opting out declaration signed by applicant's mother-Material may be relevant, given confusion as to who made decision-Applicant thought he was appealing June 2, 1998 decision-Supplemental material not usually allowed in judicial review, yet no specific bar to introducing such material-Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 55 permitting Court to dispense with compliance with any of Rules in special circumstances-Disclosure of existence of secret decision made in October 1997, well in advance of decision communicated to applicant, constituting special circumstance-To do justice, prevent prejudice to applicant, material ought to be allowed in-No prejudice to respondent, provided given adequate opportunity to reply-Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 55.