Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19971118


Docket: IMM-420-96

BETWEEN:

     ADRIAN ANTHONY DEANE

     Applicant

     - and -

     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

HEALD, D.J.

[1]      Counsel for the applicant having made no submissions on behalf of the applicant and the Court having concluded, on this record, that no reviewable error has been shown, the within application for Judicial Review is dismissed.

[2]      Both counsel have agreed that this is not a case for certification of a serious question of general importance pursuant to Section 83 of the Immigration Act. I concur with that view of the matter. Accordingly, no question is certified.

"Darrel V. Heald"

D.J.

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA


Date: 19971118


Docket: IMM-420-96

BETWEEN:

ADRIAN ANTHONY DEANE

     Applicant

     - and -

     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

    

     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

    

     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

DOCKET:                  IMM-420-96

STYLE OF CAUSE:              ADRIAN ANTHONY DEANE

    

     - and -

                     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                     AND IMMIGRATION

    

DATE OF HEARING:          NOVEMBER 18, 1997

PLACE OF HEARING:          TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER:              HEALD, D.J.

DATED:                  NOVEMBER 18, 1997

APPEARANCES:              Mr. Jay J. Leider

                         For the Applicant

                     Mr. Kevin Lunney

                         For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

                     Mr. Jay J. Leider

                     800-75 The Donway W.

                     North York, Ontario

                     M3C 2E9

                         For the Applicant

                      George Thomson

                     Deputy Attorney General

                     of Canada

                         For the Respondent

            

 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.