Soimu v. Canada ( Secretary of State )
IMM-2551-94
Rothstein J.
13/9/94
5 pp.
Application to strike originating notice of motion seeking to quash refusal of application for permanent residence in Canada as filed out of time -- Application for permanent residence refused by letter dated February 8, 1994 -- On February 14 applicant writing to visa officer requesting review of decision -- Visa officer confirming decision by letter dated April 20 -- Originating notice of motion filed May 19[cad 211]Respondent submitting decision made February 8; letter dated April 20 mere "courtesy response" -- Motion dismissed -- April 20 letter reviewing some information originally dealt with in February 8 letter, but also dealing with new submissions made in February 14 request for review -- April 20 letter constituting decision -- Not simply referring to February 8 letter or analysis made in coming to earlier decision, but expressly referring to review which must have taken place subsequent to February 8 -- Review might have resulted in change of mind -- As nothing in Immigration Act dealing with whether visa officer may review decisions already made, visa officer not functus after February 8 decision such that April 20 decision made without jurisdiction -- Applicant permitted opportunity of comprehensive judicial review covering both February 8 and April 20 decisions -- Notwithstanding R. 1602(4) providing notice of motion shall be in respect of single decision, order or other matter, judicial discretion to permit deviation from Rules as to form -- Administration of justice not impeded if notice of motion allowed to stand in present form -- Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.1 (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5) -- Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 1602(4) (as enacted by SOR/92-43, s. 19).