Date: 20030910
Docket: IMM-1144-02
Citation: 2003 FC 1054
Ottawa, Ontario, this 10th day of September, 2003
Present: The Honourable Justice James Russell
BETWEEN:
DIPAKKUMAR NATAVARLAL GANDHI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application under s. 18.1(1) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, for judicial review of a decision of a Canadian visa officer in New Delhi (the "Visa Officer") dated February 5, 2002 and communicated to Dipakkumar Natavarlal Gandhi (the "Applicant") on February 15, 2002, wherein the Visa Officer refused his application for permanent residence (the "Decision"). The Applicant seeks an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the Decision and an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the Respondent's officials to continue with the processing of the Applicant's permanent residence application in accordance with law.
BACKGROUND
[2] The Applicant's application for permanent residence in Canada under the Independent Category was received at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi on May 25, 2001. The Applicant requested that he be assessed as an Agricultural Specialist (Code 2123.0 in the National Occupational Classification ("NOC")).
[3] The Visa Officer assessed the application on January 16, 2002.
[4] The Applicant was awarded 15 units of assessment in the education factor and 17 in the education and training factor.
[5] The Applicant was not awarded any units of assessment for the experience factor. According to his Application, the Applicant had been employed as an agricultural specialist with Dipak Rose Nursery from March 1992. The Applicant also submitted an experience certificate dated April 21, 2001 issued by Dipak Rose Nursery, Navsari, Gujurat. The Visa Officer considered the certificate but found it unreliable because of numerous spelling and grammatical errors. In addition, the certificate did not have a reference number and date. The Visa Officer was of the view that business letters issued by Indian companies usually have a reference number and date for ease of reference and filing.
[6] The Applicant also submitted a copy of his resumé in which he declared that "from March 1992 to up to now" he had been employed with Dipak Rose Nursery, Nani Chovisi, India. He declared that his Job Title was "Production Incharge (Agri.)". He listed his duties as being "Budling of Roses; Grafting of foliage plants; Seasonal Patella's seeds growing; Production of Bulbs verities."
[7] The Visa Officer considered that the duties listed by the Applicant in his resumé were exactly the same as those listed in the experience certificate issued by Dipak Rose Nursery. She also noted that the spelling mistakes were the same in both job descriptions except that, on the certificate issued by Dipak Rose Nursery, the "l" in "Budling" had been amended by hand to "d" so that the word read "Budding". The Visa Officer found it unusual that an agricultural specialist would not be able to spell words related to his occupation correctly.
[8] In assessing the Applicant's experience, the Visa Officer referred to the occupational duties described in NOC 2123.0 for Agricultural Specialists. According to the nature of work statement in the NOC, Agricultural Specialists "provide assistance and advice to farmers on all aspects of farm management, cultivation, fertilization, harvesting, soil erosion and composition, disease prevention, nutrition, crop rotation and marketing." The main duties of Agricultural Specialists are listed as follows:
Provide counselling and advisory services to farmers on crop cultivation and fertilization, harvesting, animal and poultry care, disease prevention, farm management, farm financing, marketing and other agricultural subjects.
Prepare and conduct advisory information sessions and lectures for farmers and other groups.
Conduct research, analyse agricultural data and prepare research reports.
Liaise with researchers, educators and government or business managers on matters pertaining to farming and agriculture.
Maintain records of services provided and the effects advice given.
[9] The Visa Officer considered whether the duties described by the Applicant in his resumé and in his experience certificate issued by Dipak Rose Nursery were similar to the duties in NOC 2123.0 for Agricultural Specialists. She determined that the duties performed by the Applicant were dissimilar to the NOC description and concluded that the Applicant had not performed a substantial number of the main duties, including the essential ones, of his intended occupation. Accordingly, the Applicant was not awarded any units of assessment under the experience factor.
[10] As the Applicant had not performed a substantial number of the main duties, including the essential ones, of "Agricultural Specialist" as set out in NOC 2123.0, the Visa Officer decided she could not award him any units of assessment for the occupational factor.
[11] The Applicant was awarded 10 units for age, the maximum under that factor.
[12] The Applicant was awarded the maximum of 9 units of assessment for knowledge of the English language and 0 units for knowledge of the French language.
[13] The application was refused because he was not awarded any units of assessment for Occupational Demand and/or Experience, so that he did not meet the requirements of sections 11(1) and 11(2) of the Immigration Regulations, 1978.
PERTINENT LEGISLATION
[14] The relevant portions of section 8 of the Immigration Regulations 78 SOR / SOR-172 read as follows:
8.(1)Subject to section 11.1, for the purpose of determining whether an immigrant and the immigrant's dependants, other than a member of the family class, a Convention refugee seeking resettlement or an immigrant who intends to reside in the Province of Quebec, will be able to become successfully established in Canada, a visa officer shall assess that immigrant or, at the option of the immigrant, the spouse of that immigrant
...
(b) in the case of an immigrant who intends to be a self-employed person in Canada, on the basis of each of the factors listed in column I of Schedule I, other than the factor set out in item 5 thereof;
...
(2) A visa officer shall award to an immigrant who is assessed on the basis of factors listed in column I of Schedule I the appropriate number of units of assessment for each factor in accordance with the criteria set out in column II thereof opposite that factor, but he shall not award for any factors more units of assessment that the maximum number set out in column II thereof opposite that fact.
...
(4)Where a visa officer assesses an immigrant who intends to be a self-employed person in Canada, he shall, in addition to any other units of assessment awarded to that immigrant, award 30 units of assessment to the immigrant if, in the opinion of the visa officer, the immigrant will be able to become successfully established in his occupation or business in Canada.
[15] Section 9(1) of the Regulations provides:
9.(1) Subject to subsection (1.01) and section 11, where an immigrant other than a member fo the family class, an assisted relative or a Convention refugee seeking resettlement makes an application for a visa, a visa officer may issue an immigrant visa to him and his accompanying dependants if
(a) ...
(b) where the immigrant and the immigrant's accompanying dependants intend to reside in a place in Canada other than the Province of Quebec, on the basis of the assessment of the immigrant or the spouse of that immigrant in accordance with section 8, and
(I) in the case of an immigrant other than an entrepreneur, an investor or a provincial nominee, he is awarded at least 70 units of assessment.
(I) at least 60 units of assessment, where the immigrant is not an
assisted relative
[16] Section 11 of the Regulations provides, in part, as follows:
11. (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (5), a visa officer shall not issue an immigrant visa pursuant to subsection 9(1) or 10(1) or (1.1) to an immigrant who is assessed on the basis of factors listed in column I of Schedule I and is not awarded any units of assessment for the factor set out in item 3 thereof unless the immigrant
(a) has arranged employment in Canada and has a written statement from the proposed employer verifying that he is willing to employ an inexperienced person in the position in which the person is to be employed, and the visa officer is satisfied that the person can perform the work required without experience; or
(b) is qualified for and is prepared to engage in employment in a designated occupation.
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), a visa officer shall not issue an immigrant visa pursuant to section 9 or 10 to an immigrant other than an entrepreneur, an investor, a provincial nominee or a self-employed person unless
(a) the units of assessment awarded to that immigrant include at least one unit of assessment for the factor set out in item 4 of Column I of Schedule I;
(b) the immigrant has arranged employment in Canada; or
(c) the immigrant is prepared to engage in employment in a designated occupation.
[17] Section 11.1 of the Regulations provides, in part, as follows:
11.1 For the purpose of determining whether an immigrant and the immigrant's dependants will be able to become successfully established in Canada, a visa officer is not required to conduct interviews unless, based on a review of the visa application and the documents submitted in support thereof,
(a) the immigrant is an immigrant described in paragraph 8(1)(1) and is awarded, for the factors set out in column I of items 1 to 8 of Schedule I, including, where required by these Regulations, at least one unit of assessment for each of the factors set out in column I of items 3 and 4 of that Schedule,
(I) at least 60 units of assessment, where the immigrant is not an assisted relative, ...
[18] Sections 9 and 10, referred to in section 11 detail the minimum number of assessment points required overall; here, the Applicant needed 70 points overall to qualify for an immigrant visa.
[19] Schedule 1 to the Regulations sets out the basic criteria for each of the factors. The points under the experience factor are assessed at 2 points for every year of relevant experience the Applicant is able to demonstrate, up to a maximum of 8. Therefore, a minimum of 1 year of experience in the relevant area or industry would be required to meet the minimum standard required by the Regulations.
[20] Points in the occupation factor are awarded where the intended occupation of the Applicant appears on the relevant occupation list, in addition to complying with the relevant requirements as listed in the NOC under that occupation. There is a maximum score of 10 units possible for this factor; the maximum is only awarded where the Applicant has arranged employment. Therefore, in order to meet the regulatory minimum, the Applicant had to demonstrate that he met the requirements of the NOC and that he intended to practice in the indicated occupation when in Canada.
ISSUES
[21] The Applicant raises various issues in his written materials but, at the hearing of this matter, dropped all but the following:
1. Did the Visa Officer properly assess the Applicant's experience; and
2. Did the Visa Officer err in law by failing to advise the Applicant of her concerns and not giving him the opportunity to address them, or in failing to make follow-up inquiries of others to allay those concerns?
ANALYSIS
What is the appropriate standard of review?
[22] This Court has held that the decision of a visa officer is discretionary in nature. Even if I were to find that I would have reached a different conclusion to that of the Visa Officer, I am not permitted to intervene unless the Visa Officer acted in a patently unreasonable manner.
[23] In Al-Rifai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1703 (Fed. T.D.), Beaudry J. indicated:
[para. 29] I adopt the principles in Maple Lodge Farms Ltd. v. Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2, To v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1996] F.C.J. No. 696 (F.C.A.) (QL) and Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] S.C.J. No. 3, 2002 SCC 1, of patently unreasonableness in discretionary decisions from the VO.
[para. 30] Turning to the substantive submissions of the applicant, it is important to note that the ability of the Court to intervene in the decisions of visa officers is very limited. The Court has so stated on several occasions. In Skoruk v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1687, 2001 FCT 1220, Nadon J. (as he then was) notes that the standard of review with respect to administrative decisions involving the exercise of statutory discretion is that laid out in Maple Lodge Farms Ltd., supra. If the discretion is exercised in good faith and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, a court will not interfere. That standard applies to the decisions of visa officers.
[24] In the Federal Court decision in Wang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.C.J. No. 351, Linden J.A. (ex officco) confirmed this standard of review:
[para. 6] Our jurisprudence holds the standard of review for this type of administrative decision is the test from Maple Lodge Farms v. Government of Canada, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 2 which teaches that a court should not interfere "[w]here the statutory discretion has been exercised in good faith and, where required, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and where reliance has not been placed upon considerations irrelevant or extraneous to the statutory purpose" (see: Skoruk v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2001 FCT 1220; Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 555, 2001 FCT 330; Al-Rifai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2002 FCT 1236; and Jang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2001] F.C.J. No. 1575, 2001 FCA 312).
Did the Visa Officer commit a reviewable error?
[25] The Applicant submits that the notes taken on the Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System ("CAIPS") at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi clearly indicate that both the experience letter and the Applicant's resumé were before the Visa Officer. The Applicant argues that the Visa Officer failed to notice that his resumé expressly stated the designation of the Applicant as "Production Incharge (Agri.)". The Applicant submits that it was the duty of the Visa Officer to call the Applicant for a formal interview before points could be awarded for the experience factor category.
[26] The Applicant points out that he was initially awarded one point under the occupational factor and a total of 65 points were awarded. The Applicant submits that an award of 65 points in the initial assessment warrants that an interview be conducted to assess points under the experience factor.
[27] The Applicant adds that he was employed as an "Agricultural Specialist" and his designation was "Production Incharge (Agri.)". He submits that he was employed in a managerial or supervisory capacity. He argues that, having initially awarded points for the occupational factor, it was incumbent on the Visa Officer to ascertain further particulars from the Applicant and/or conduct background checks, including contacting the employer, to determine the nature of the Applicant's experience. The Applicant submits that none of this was ever done.
[28] The Applicant argues that the errors committed by the Visa Officer in completing her assessment of the Applicant's Application, particularly as it related to her allotment of points under the occupational factor, constitute an error of law. The Applicant further submits that there was a failure to grant the Applicant an opportunity to disabuse the Visa Officer of her concerns regarding his experience in the field of "Agricultural Specialist" (Saggu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1994), 87 F.T.R. 137 (Fed. T.D.)) which also amounts to an error in law.
[29] The Applicant's position is that visa officers are bound by law and have a duty to treat applicants fairly. The Applicant submits that he was never given an opportunity to appear at an interview to contradict or disprove any adverse information on the file or to address any negative concerns. He submits that, as a matter of fairness, he should have been given an opportunity to provide information to support his current experience. The Applicant submits that the Canadian High Commission, New Delhi CAIPS notes do not indicate that such an opportunity was afforded to him (Hajariwala v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 6 Imm. L.R. (2d) 222 (Fed. T.D.)).
[30] The Applicant submits that Muliadi v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1986] 2 F.C. 205 (Fed. C.A.) indicates that, where a statute uses the word "satisfy", it is the obligation of the Visa Officer to point out to an applicant that she / he is less than satisfied and to give the applicant a chance of satisfying her / him.
[31] The Applicant further argues that, if the Visa Officer had an impression of deficiency in the proof being offered by the Applicant, there was a duty to give the Applicant some opportunity to disabuse the Visa Officer of any adverse impression. The duty of fairness owed to the Applicant required that such an opportunity be given (Fong v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1990), 11 Imm. L.R. (2d) 205 (Fed. T.D.))
[32] The Respondent submits that the onus is on the Applicant to provide sufficient credible evidence in support of his Application for permanent residence to satisfy the Visa Officer that it would not be contrary to the Immigration Act or Regulations to issue a visa to the Applicant.
[33] The Respondent submits that the Visa Officer did not commit a reviewable error by failing to advise the Applicant that she was not satisfied with the documentation provided by the Applicant concerning his experience.
[34] The Respondent argues that, at the paper screening stage, it is well-established that there is no duty on a visa officer to advise an applicant that his or her documentation is unsatisfactory.
As Rothstein J. stated in Lam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1239:
4 A visa officer may inquire further if he or she considers a further enquiry is warranted. Obviously, a visa officer cannot be wilfully blind in assessing an application and must act in good faith. However, there is no general obligation on a visa officer to make further inquiries when an application is ambiguous. The onus is on an applicant to file a clear application together with such supporting documentation as he or she considers advisable. The onus does not shift to the visa officer and there is no entitlement to a personal interview if the application is ambiguous or supporting material is not included.
[35] The Respondent submits that the case law establishes that the onus is on the Applicant to file an application with all relevant supporting documentation and that the Applicant had to put his "best case forward" (Chen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1123 (Fed. T.D.) at para. 26).
[36] The Respondent contends that the Visa Officer considered the duties listed in both the Applicant's resumé and experience letter. She concluded that the Applicant had not performed a substantial number of the main duties as described in the NOC "Agricultural Specialist" description. The Respondent submits that there was no evidence before the Visa Officer that the Applicant had performed any of the main duties as listed.
[37] The Respondent points out that nowhere in the experience certificate from Dipak Rose Nursery does the Applicant's employer state that the Applicant was employed in a "managerial capacity".
[38] The Respondent argues that, in the circumstances, there was no duty on the Visa Officer to make further inquiries. Furthermore, the Respondent submits that it was open to the Visa Officer to conclude that the Applicant had not performed a substantial number of the main duties. The Respondent refers to the comments of Tremblay-Lamer J. in Tahir v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] F.C.J. No. 1354:
8 ... The onus is on the Applicant to file an application together with any relevant supporting documentation. There is no duty for the visa officer to try to bolster an incomplete application. Obviously, the visa officer may make inquiries, when warranted, but, where the applicant simply provides a job title and does not even care enough to provide any of the available supporting material, I find it offensive to suggest that the burden is shifted and that the visa officer should have done more than she did.
[39] The Applicant submits that the Visa Officer should have called him in for a formal interview before rejecting his Application, at least in part on the basis that he was awarded "0" in for the experience factor or, where the Visa Officer had an impression of deficiency in the proof being offered by the Applicant, there was a duty to give him some opportunity to disabuse her of that crucial impression.
[40] As McNair J. stated for the Court in Fong v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1990] F.C.J. No. 641 (Q.L.) (T.D.):
16. The whole issue, as it seems to me, comes down to this: whether the visa officer erred in law in the manner in which he conducted his interview by failing to delve sufficiently into the applicant's related experience in making a "0" assessment in [page715] respect thereof or, failing that, whether there was some breach of a duty of fairness.
17. In both the Fung and Wang cases, supra, the applicants failed to convince the visa officers that they had the necessary experience in the intended occupation, after a thoroughgoing investigation and evaluation of all pertinent factors. Indeed, in both of these cases the visa officers fairly apprised the applicants of the specific deficiencies in respect of the intended occupations, and afforded them ample opportunity to respond thereto.
18. In Hajariwala v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1989] 2 F.C. 79 (T.D.), the applicant was successful in obtaining certiorari quashing refusal of his request for permanent residence and mandamus directing that the application be reconsidered according to law on the grounds of the visa officer's error in law in failing to assess alternate work experience in relation to the intended occupation and breach of a duty of fairness to afford an opportunity to provide information in support of current experience in each included occupation. ...
...
19. In my view, there is no cogent evidence in the present case that the visa officer went beyond the intended job description of production line manager and the CCDO definition thereof and directed a specific line of questioning as to the applicant's actual work experience in the garment industry broken down into its constituent elements for the purpose of making an appropriate assessment with respect to their adaptability or transferability to the intended occupation. It is apparent from Mr. Thornton's affidavit that he made no attempt to do this. In my opinion, his failure to do so constituted an error in law. I am also of the opinion that the visa officer committed a breach of the duty of fairness by his failure to afford the applicant an adequate opportunity to answer the specific case against him on the issue of related experience vis-à-vis the job offer of production line manager, which could have been done and should have been done by an appropriate line of questioning, once it became apparent that the application for permanent residence was likely to fail on that score. This was the course followed by the visa officers in the Fung and Wang cases.
[41] The Respondent refers me to a well-known line of cases that establish that the onus is up on the Applicant to put his best case forward to supply the Visa Officer with all of the information required to make a decision. The following are typical statements of this position:
1. A visa officer may inquire further if he or she considers a further enquiry is warranted. Obviously, a visa officer cannot be wilfully blind in assessing an application and must act in good faith. However, there is no general obligation on a visa officer to make further inquiries when an application is ambiguous. The onus is on an applicant to file a clear application together with such supporting documentation as he or she considers advisable. The onus does not shift to the visa officer and there is no entitlement to a personal interview if the application is ambiguous or supporting material is not included.
Lam, supra
2. Section 11.1 of the Regulations provides that a visa officer is not required to conduct an interview unless, based on a review of the visa application and documents submitted in support thereof, the immigrant is awarded at least one unit of assessment for each of the factors of experience and occupational demand. My emphasis stresses the need for visa applicants to provide full and complete documentation in support of their application. They must put their best case forward. If they do not do so, they cannot expect the visa officer to do their work.
Chen, supra, at para. 26.
[42] However, the relevance of this line of cases to the case at bar is dubious. The Visa Officer does not say that the Applicant did not supply her with the information required to establish that he met the NOC requirements. Rather, she specifically says in her affidavit, sworn January 7, 2002, at paragraph 35, that she did not require any further clarification:
35. At paragraph 12 of his Affidavit, the Applicant has stated that if the immigration officer required any further clarification or particulars with regard to his application, she could have contacted his employers. I based my decision on the information provided by the Applicant with his Application which included an experience certificate purportedly issued on May 21, 2001, by his employer. It was evident to me from the duties described in these two documents that the Applicant had not performed the duties of Agricultural specialists NOC 2123.0. I did not require any further clarification.
[43] If the documentation referred to by the Visa Officer as the basis for her decision is reviewed, it is difficult to see how the Visa Officer could state categorically that "[i]t was evident to me from the duties described in these two documents that the Applicant had not performed the duties of Agricultural Specialists NOC 2123.0. I did not require any further clarification."
[44] In his own resumé, the Applicant had described himself as "Production Incharge (Agri)" and the experience certificate (which is actually dated April 21, 2001) merely says somewhat ambiguously, that the Applicant "look (sic) after" certain matters.
[45] In my opinion, the Visa Officer's categorical assertion that she had all the information she required to make the decision from this documentation was an exercise in the kind of wilful blindness referred to by Rothstein J. in Lam, supra. The evidential base referred to by the Visa Officer was not sufficient to support the conclusions she came to. Further inquiries were warranted in order to render her assessment meaningful in accordance with the relevant NOC description.
[46] I am not suggesting that there is any onus upon the Visa Officer to bolster an incomplete application. She is at liberty to say an application is incomplete and that the Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the NOC description. But where, as in this case, the Visa Officer states categorically that a decision is based upon specific information that did not require clarification, in my opinion it is open to this court to hold that such a conclusion was patently unreasonable, and I so hold in this case.
[47] The Applicant also points out that he was awarded one point under the occupational factor and a total of 65 points were awarded at his initial assessment. The Applicant submits that these factors require that an interview be conducted to assess points under the experience factor.
[48] In order for an Applicant to be granted an interview the Applicant must obtain at least 60 units of assessment and at least one unit of assessment for each of the factors set out in column I, items 3 and 4. The Respondent submits that, in the Applicant's initial screening, he received no units of assessment under the experience factor and therefore an interview was not warranted. The Respondent submits that the initial assessment of 65 points is irrelevant.
[49] Section 11.1(a)(I) of the Regulations does not support the Applicant's contention that he should have qualified for an interview upon receiving 65 points, including one point under the occupational factor, since he did not receive any points under the experience factor. However, Fong, supra, assists the Applicant in his argument that further inquiries were in order based on the fact that he was awarded "0" points for experience. The Visa Officer was subject to the duty of fairness, and given the nature of the Applicant's submissions, she should have made further inquiries.
ORDER
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for judicial review is allowed, the February 5, 2002 decision is set aside and the matter is remitted for reconsideration by a differently constituted panel.
2. No question will be certified.
"James Russell"
J.F.C.C.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: IMM-1144-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: DIPAKKUMAR NATAVARLAL GANDHI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY AUGUST 5, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: RUSSELL J.
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Mario Bellissimo
For the Applicant
Ms. Kareena Wilding
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Bellissimo
900-1000 Finch Ave W
Toronto, Ontario
M3J 2V5
For the Applicant
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20030910
Docket: IMM-1144-02
BETWEEN:
DIPAKKUMAR NATAVARLAL GANDHI
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER