Lu v Canada 2004 I'A'D'

1
Lu v Canada 2004 I.A.D.

• bad faith test to be read conjunctively key
  sttty interp point, onus is on the appellant once
  exclusion is raised
• consider types of evidence presented (or absent)
• language appellant and applicant
• intention to reside permanently as evidence of
  genuineness only (new test differs from old)
• N.B. de novo hearings
• issue estoppel not important
• what would your own assessment of this story be?

2
Macapagal v Canada 2004 I.A.D.

• test for conjugal relationship interdependence
  and 7 indicative factors
• after this estd move on to bad faith analysis (?
  likely to fail here?)
• N.B. use of Phillipine law
• consequences of tribunal level decision
• how does the evidence here compare with Lu? As
  counsel, what evidence would you submit?

3
Vong v Canada 2004 I.A.D.

• mother is undefined in the IRPA and IRPR
• nuturing relationship, recogzd in the community
  possibly other factors, more than one mother is
  possible
• looks to old Act and draws conclusion on the
  basis of a lack of definition
• evidence of how Vietnamese society views
  stepmothers
• intent of Parliament to anticipate shifting
  attitudes toward family (??)
• note comments re HC considerations

4
Natt v Canada 2004 FC

• adoption validity and adding members to the
  family class
• they were her dependent children at all times
• culture context of understanding of adoption
• what legislative purpose seems to animate s
  117(9)(d)?
• compare facts and legal argument to Guzman

5
Nguyen v Canada 2003 FCTD

• remember trial division no longer exists
• modern purposive approach to statutory
  interpretation look to the object and purpose
  of the legislation, n.b. use of objectives clause
• what do you think of the statement that such an
  interpretation is consistent with the principle
  of family reunification (at para 17)?
• what does para 19 mean?

6
Guzman v Canada 2004 FC

• two sons not declared on PR application
• 3 issues regarding reg 117(9)(d)
• ultra vires s 12(1) of the Act?
• construction of IRPAs purpose
• ultra vires s 3 (3)(f)?
• held to inform the contextual approach to
  statutory interpretation
• infringes s. 7 of the Charter
• finds no threshold infringement to trigger the
  section
• how important are the facts in this case?
• note the jurisdictional point re the IAD