Procedural unfairness, or lack of diligence?

Procedural unfairness, or lack of diligence?

When it comes to immigration applications, there is sometimes a fine line between what is considered to be unfair treatment by Citizenship and Immigration Canada and what is considered to be a lack of attention on part of the applicant.

In the case of Routhledge v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), the Applicant, Mr. Antony Routhledge, felt that he was not treated fairly by the immigration officer.

In this case, Mr. Routhledge, a citizen of the United Kingdom r became involved in a relationship with a Canadian citizen. Mr. Routhledge, who had a daughter from a previous relationship, filed an application for permanent residency under the spouse of a Canadian. In this application, he listed his daughter, Kristin, as a non-accompanying dependent child.

More than one chance to get it right

Even though Kristin was not going to move to Canada, in order for Mr. Routhledge’s application to be approved, both he and Kristin had to undergo medical examinations done by doctors designated Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Mr. Routhledge did his exam with a designated doctor. Kristin, however, was taken by her mother to a doctor who was not on the approved list.

Upon submitting his daughter’s medical report to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the immigration officer told Mr. Routhledge that the doctor that Kristin had visited was not a designated doctor. As a result, the results were not valid. The immigration officer gave Mr. Routhledge a three-month extension to get Kristin examined by a designated doctor. Despite this, Kristin was again taken to a different undesignated doctor.

Based on Kristin’s lack of a medical report from a designated doctor Mr. Routhledge’s application was refused.

Mr. Routhledge responded that he would like to have Kristin removed from his application all together. This request was denied, based on the fact that Mr. Routhledge did not provide any documentation to support his claim that his ex-spouse (Kristin’s mother) had sole custody of Kristin. Based on all of these facts, Mr. Routhledge was refused Canadian permanent residency.

The applicant’s responsibility

In this case, the judge found that Mr. Routhledge was repeatedly made aware of the requirement to have his daughter examined by a designated doctor and the consequences of failing to do so. Despite these warnings, the judge found that Mr. Routhledge repeatedly demonstrated what the judge called was a “lack of diligence”. As a result, the judge found that he was “the author of his own misfortune” .The line between procedural unfairness and a lack of diligence on part of Mr. Routhledge is quite wide. He was given more than one opportunity to submit the property evidence with his application and, though he indicated that his ex-wife was the one responsible for getting Kristin seen by a designated doctor, it was he who failed to meet the requirements set out by Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s request. Based on these facts, Mr. Routhledge’s application for review was refused and he lost his case.

This Article is prepared for general information purposes only and is intended to provide comments for readers and friends of the Filipino Journal. The contents should not be viewed as legal advice or opinion. If you have specific questions regarding immigration law, you should discuss them with a legal advisor of your choice.

Reis is a partner with Aikins Law and practices in the areas of immigration law. His direct line is 204-957-4640. If you would like to know more about Reis or Aikins you can visit the firm’s web page at or e-mail him at Leanne is an immigration legal assistant at Aikins Law. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology and criminal justice from the University of Winnipeg.