Facts:
Mavis Baker, a Jamaican-born citizen, diagnosed with a mental illness was ordered deported, after information was discovered about her illegally living in Canada for 11 years. As a visitor, Ms. Baker entered Canada in August of 1981 and began working illegally as a domestic, where she subsequently had four Canadian-born children. Baker is the sole caregiver for two of her children and provides emotional support for her other two children, which she is in regular contact with. To avoid immediate deportation, Baker applied for exoneration from the requirement to administer permanent residence outside Canada, based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under s.114 (2) of the Immigration Act. In response, a letter sent by immigration officials stated that there was insufficient evidence of humanitarian and compassionate reasons to process her application and grant permanent residence in Canada. There was no actual reason stated in the letter. This caused a review of the immigration officer’s notes in question.
Issue:
When making a decision for Ms. Bakers appeal, did the immigration official improperly exercise his discretionary power following the Immigration …show more content…
Bakers appeal was granted because of the violation of the principles of procedural fairness based on the reasonable apprehension of bias, and because the immigration official exercised unreasonable discretion.
Ratio Decidendi: Throughout this case, the primary elements of the administrative law are addressed, where the concept of fairness is thoroughly examined in agreement with the terms of participation rights, the requirement of having written reasons when making a decision, and the notion of bias. This case is used to show, how everyone is entitled to fair procedure, lack of bias and reviews of the decisions being reached under substantive grounds. It is evident that the duty of fairness applies to everyone’s rights, interests, or privileges.