A-550-80
Vincent Allen (Applicant)
v.
Minister of Employment and Immigration
(Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Heald J., MacKay and Kelly
D.JJ.—Toronto, October 6 and 8, 1980.
Judicial review — Adjudicator stated, in opening the inqui
ry, that he had been advised that an inquiry was to be held
concerning applicant — Whether s. 23(3) of Immigration Act,
1976 requires a written direction or a particular document for
the initiation of the inquiry — Application for judicial review
is dismissed — Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77, c. 52, s.
23(3) — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c. 10.
s. 28.
APPLICATION for judicial review.
COUNSEL:
Brent Knazan for applicant.
Marlene Thomas for respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Knazan, Jackman & Goodman, Toronto, for
applicant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
The following are the reasons for judgment
rendered in English by
HEALD J.: The initial submission made by coun
sel for the applicant was to the effect that the
Adjudicator was without jurisdiction to conduct
subject inquiry because, in his submission, there
was no evidence in the record to establish that a
senior immigration officer, pursuant to section
23(3) of the Immigration Act, 1976, S.C. 1976-77,
c. 52 had caused the inquiry to be held. We are all
of the opinion that this submission is without
merit. At page 2 of the transcript of proceedings of
the inquiry, the Adjudicator, in opening the inqui
ry, made the following statement: "I've been
advised that an Inquiry is to be held concerning
Vincent Allen."
In our view, this is evidence indicating that a
senior immigration officer had caused an inquiry
to be held and that the Adjudicator had been
designated to conduct that inquiry. There is noth-
ing in the wording of section 23(3) which requires
a written direction or a particular document for
the initiation of the inquiry. The section simply
requires the senior immigration officer, in the
appropriate circumstances to "cause an inquiry to
be held." On this record, we are satisfied that a
senior immigration officer did cause the inquiry,
subsequently conducted by Adjudicator Bruce
Tune, to be held.
While holding that the section does not require a
written authorization, there would, nevertheless,
seem to be some evidence on this record of a
written authorization by a senior immigration offi
cer. Exhibit C-1 is the section 20 report consisting
of two pages and is signed on page 2 thereof by the
immigration officer making the report. However,
on page 1 of that report there appears to be
another and different signature above the printed
designation: "Senior Immigration Officer." One
might well conclude, therefore, on the basis of this
documentation, that a senior immigration officer
had, by his signature, authorized the inquiry.
However, as stated, supra, as we read section
23(3), a written authorization is not necessary.
The other submissions of counsel for the appli
cant related to the conduct of the inquiry itself.
We are all of the view, after a careful perusal of
the inquiry transcript, that the record in this case
fails to disclose any reviewable error in the con
duct of the inquiry.
For these reasons, the section 28 application is
dismissed.
* * *
MACKAY D.J.: I concur.
* * *
KELLY D.J.: I concur.
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.