A-488-77
In re Peter Joseph James Kennedy and in re a
purported immigration hearing held by J. H. Bet-
teridge, Special Inquiry Officer, concerning Peter
Joseph James Kennedy
Court of Appeal, Pratte, Heald and Urie JJ.—
Vancouver, September 9, 1977.
Judicial review — Immigration — Deportation — Section
18 report triggering deportation process, incomplete — Rules
of natural justice met — Whether or not deportation order
valid — Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-2, ss. 18, 25.—
Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
Applicant attacks validity of deportation order made against
him following a special inquiry. It is argued that the deporta
tion order is vitiated because the Director's order which trig
gered the inquiry was made as a consequence of a report not
complying with the requirements of section 18.
Held, the application is dismissed. In a case like the present
one where the rules of natural justice have been complied with,
the mere fact that a section 18 report does not fully meet all the
requirements of section 18 cannot be held to affect the validity
of the special inquiry and of the deportation order.
Minister of Manpower and Immigration v. Brooks [1974]
S.C.R. 850, followed. Moore v. Minister of Manpower and
Immigration [1968] S.C.R. 839, followed.
APPLICATION, for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
D. E. Black for applicant.
G. C. Carruthers for respondents.
SOLICITORS:
Montaine & Black, Vancouver, for applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondents.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
PRATTE J.: The applicant attacks a deportation
order made against him following a special inquiry
held pursuant to an order made by the Director
under section 25 of the Immigration Act, R.S.C.
1970, c. I-2.
The applicant's main argument, and the only
one which, in our view, deserves consideration, is
that the deportation order is vitiated by reason of
the fact that the order of the Director which
triggered the inquiry was made as a consequence
of a report which did not comply with the require
ments of section 18 in that
(1) it did not contain sufficient particulars, and
(2) it had been made by a person who had an
insufficient knowledge of the facts warranting
the report.
This argument, in our view, must be rejected. In
view of the decisions of the Supreme Court of
Canada in Minister of Manpower and Immigra
tion v. Brooks [1974] S.C.R. 850 at page 854, and
Moore v. Minister of Manpower and Immigration
[1968] S.C.R. 839 at page 847, in a case like the
present one, where the rules of natural justice have
been complied with, the mere fact that a section 18
report does not fully meet all the requirements of
section 18 cannot, in our opinion, be held to affect
the validity of the special inquiry and of the depor
tation order.
For these reasons the application will be
dismissed.
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.