A-661-78
Lachman Sewjattan (Applicant)
v.
Minister of Employment and Immigration and
Claude Bourget (Respondents)
and
Deputy Attorney General of Canada (Mis -en-
cause)
Court of Appeal, Jackett C.J., Le Dain J. and
Hyde D.J.—Montreal, February 20, 1979.
Judicial review — Immigration — Deportation —
Adjudicator informed applicant of right to representation by
counsel and adjourned inquiry for short period to allow appli
cant to retain counsel — Applicant under impression that he
only had the time allowed for adjournment to have a lawyer at
the inquiry — Deportation order set aside — Immigration Act,
1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, s. 30(1) — Federal Court Act,
R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
William G. Morris for applicant.
Suzanne Marcoux-Paquette for respondents
and mis -en-cause.
SOLICITORS:
William G. Morris, Montreal, for applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondents and mis -en-cause.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
JACKETT C.J.: In this section 28 application to
set aside a deportation order, we have come to the
conclusion that we should grant the application by
reason of a failure to comply with section 30(1) of
the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52,
which reads:
30. (1) Every person with respect to whom an inquiry is to
be held shall be informed that he has the right to obtain the
services of a barrister or solicitor or other counsel and to be
represented by any such counsel at his inquiry and shall be
given a reasonable opportunity, if he so desires and at his own
expense, to obtain such counsel.
After the Adjudicator realized that the appli
cant wished to have counsel, he said:
So of course Mr. Sewjattan you have the right to be represent
ed by somebody here and since this is one of your rights and
you wish to have someone then I will have to adjourn this
inquiry for a period of about fifteen to twenty minutes so that
you can try to get in touch with somebody. In twenty minutes I
would like you to come back here and tell me what are the
result [sic] of your research for a counsel.
After some discussion this time was extended to
thirty minutes.
We have no doubt that,
(a) if, after the short adjournment, the appli
cant had reported that he had not succeeded in
finding counsel, the Adjudicator would have
given him such further time as might have been
reasonably required to obtain the services of a
lawyer, and
(b) if, after the applicant had retained a lawyer,
the lawyer had asked for time to prepare the
applicant's case, the Adjudicator would have
provided such further adjournment as was
necessary in the circumstances.
Unfortunately, the Adjudicator did not so
inform the applicant and left the impression that
he had only thirty minutes adjournment in which
to have a lawyer at the inquiry to represent him.
In these circumstances, we have concluded that
the provision of section 30 was not complied with
and, as we are of opinion that section 30 is manda
tory, we have concluded that the deportation order
should be set aside.
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.