Federal Court Decision #A-373-92 - BARZAN, FRANCES v. THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION

JUDGMENT OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

Date:
April 1, 1993

Docket:
A-373-92

Umpire's Decision:
CUB 20793

CORAM:

HEALD J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
ROBERTSON J.A.

BETWEEN:

FRANCES BARZAN,

applicant,

- and -

THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION,

respondent.

Heard at Ottawa, on Thursday, April 1, 1993.

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa
on Tuesday, April 1, 1993)

HEALD J.A.:

We have considerable sympathy for the applicant's plight as did the learned Umpire. That being said, we have concluded that the applicant has not shown reviewable error. As noted by the Umpire, the applicant was "well out of time" in making the application for an extension of time. The Umpire refused to extend the time since, in his view, the reason for delay advanced by the applicant (waiting to hear concerning representations made by her M.P. to the Minister) was not a proper and justifiable reason. Such a decision falls within the Umpire's discretion and can only be reversed where that discretion is exercised improperly. On this record, we are unable to say that the learned Umpire improperly exercised his discretion. In our view, such a conclusion was reasonably open to him in the circumstances of this case.

Turning now to the substantive issue, the Umpire correctly applied the rationale of the Granger case ¹. In Granger, as in this case, the applicant was misled by the Commission. In dealing with the issue, Pratte J.A. in writing for the majority stated at page 215:

It is beyond question that the Commission and its representatives have no power to amend the law, and that therefore the interpretations which they may give of that law do not themselves have the force of law. It is equally certain that any commitment which the Commission or its representatives may give, whether in good and bad faith, to act in a way other than that prescribed by law would be absolutely void and contrary to public order.

Accordingly, it is our conclusion that the Umpire's decision (page 4) was correct when he decided:

The Commission in law owes her no benefits of any kind.

The application for judicial review will therefore be dismissed.

"Darrel V. Heald"

J.A.

¹ Granger v. C.E.I.C., 69 N.R. 212 - Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed.