Category: Functus Officio

The Court held that the doctrine of functus officio did not apply to immigration officer considering H & C applications and that the officer had a discretion to decide whether or not it would in a particular case reopen the file

The applicant received two decisions the first was sent as a result of an administrative error. The Court concluded that the tribunal was not functus in this situation and that the second correct decision was valid:31 My examination of the record persuades me the principle of functus officio does not apply to the tribunal's November decision, notice of which was dated November 28, 2002 and signed by the case management officer. 32 The principle of functus officio has no application because the notice of decision dated August 20, 2002, was issued in error. There was never any intention by the tribunal to issue a posi-tive decision and it never rendered a positive decision of which notice could be given.

The Court concluded that the officer had jurisdiction to reopen a negative decision on a skilled worker application but did not err in refusing to do so because the applicant had sufficient notice of the requirements and failed to comply with them.

The Court upheld a decision of the officer who refused to assess points for a relative residing in Canada due to a lack of documentation. The Court found that there was no fettering of discretion on the facts of the case. The refusal to reopen was not unreasonable although the officer had the right to reopen if he so chose.

The Court held that the decision on a PRRA Application was made when it was given to the applicant. The officer erred by not considering a submissions received after the decision was rendered but before it was communicated.

The Applicants were found to be refugees but hte Minister sought judicial review and the decision was set aside. In the interim the applicants had applied for permanent residence and were granted it even though the decision granting refugee status was set aside. The Court held that once status was granted the officer was functus and could not correct the error.

The officer had rejected an H & C application finding that the applicant had failed to provide a death certificate for his late wife. The applicant, when he received the decision, immediately provided the death certificate and asked the officer to reconsider the decision in view of the new evidence. The officer refused. The court considered whether or not the officer was functus officio and concluded that she was not. The court considered the informal nature of the H&C process and the need for flexibility in respond to changes in circumstances and new information outweighed the desirability having finality and certainty in the decision-making process.