Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
The court held that a visa officer who refuses an application on redetermination after a previous decision was set aside is not required to specifically state or set out the differences between the two decisions; the certified question is answered in the negative and the appeal is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2004 FCA 143
- Parties
- Applicant: Lai Sheung Eva Lee; Respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 31 March 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Immigration Judicial Review / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; certified question answered in the negative.
- Legal Topics
- Redetermination, Procedural Fairness, Reasoned Decisions, Certified Question
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lai Sheung Eva Lee
Applicant
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Immigration Judicial Review / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Where a visa officer refuses an application for permanent residence on redetermination, after a previous decision was set aside by the court, is the visa officer obliged to specifically state or set out the differences between the two decisions?
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that a visa officer who refuses an application on redetermination after a previous decision was set aside is not required to specifically state or set out the differences between the two decisions; the certified question is answered in the negative and the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; certified question answered in the negative.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Certified question answered in the negative: visa officer not obliged to specifically state differences between decisions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Lee v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2004-03-31 Neutral citation 2004 FCA 143 File numbers A-308-03 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20040331 Docket: A-308-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 143 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. EVANS J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: LAI SHEUNG EVA LEE Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 31, 2004. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on March 31, 2004. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A. Date: 20040331 Docket: A-308-03 Citation: 2004 FCA 143 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. EVANS J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: LAI SHEUNG EVA LEE Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on March 31, 2004) DÉCARY J.A. [1] We are in substantial agreement with the reasons for judgment of Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson reported at (2003) 30 Imm. L.R. (3d) 273 (F.C.T.D.). [2] The following certified question: Where a visa officer refuses an application for permanent residence on redetermination, after a previous decision was set aside by the court, is the visa officer obliged to specifically state or set out the differences between the two decisions? is answered in the negative. [3] The appeal is dismissed. "Robert Décary" J.A. FEDERAL COURT Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record DOCKET: A-308-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: LAI SHEUNG EVA LEE Applicant and MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 31, 2004 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: (DECARY, EVANS, PELLETIER JJ.A.). DELIVERD FROM THE BENCH BY: DÈCARY J.A. APPEARANCES BY: Cecil Rotenberg For the Applicant Marissa Bielski For the Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Cecil Rotenberg, Q.C. Toronto, Ontario For the Applicant Morris Rosenberg Deputy Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent