1. In June 1996, Mr. Moon ("Moon") and his family were landed
in Canada (the "Moon Family"). The Moon Family received permanent
resident status on the basis of a proposal that Moon submitted to
a visa officer to invest one million dollars as an entrepreneur in
the leisure and tourism business, and to run condominiums or chalets
in Whistler under a joint basis (the "Terms and Conditions").
In March 2000, some four and a half years after the Moon Family
landed, Sharon Nester, an immigration officer, interviewed Moon and
determined that he had not complied with the Terms and Conditions.
Moon states that it was only at this point that he realized the
seriousness of his situation. During the four and half years since
his landing, Moon had had contact with various immigration officers.
An investigation was conducted and departure orders were subsequently
issued against the Moon Family (the "Departure Orders").
The Moon Family appealed the Departure Orders to the Appeal Division
of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Appeal Division").
The Moon Family did not challenge the validity of the Departure Orders but
submitted that in all the circumstances of the case, they should not be
removed from Canada. At the outset of the hearing before the Appeal
Division, Moon presented submissions on an application to postpone the
hearing for a few months (the "Motion"). Moon submitted that he was
considering acquiring a business that may comply with the Terms and
Conditions. The Appeal Division denied both the Motion and the . . .
Chang Yung Moon and his family were landed in Canada on the condition that Mr. Would invest $100,000 in the leisure and tourism business. Because Mr. Moon has failed to meet this condition, departure orders were issued against them.
The Moon family brought these orders before the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. They did not challenge the validity of the orders. However, the Moons requested that the hearing be postponed for a few months so that Mr. Moon could invest in a suitable business.
The appeal division denied this request, as well as the applicants' appeal of the departure orders.
The sole issue is whether the Appeal Division breached the principles of procedural fairness by refusing to postpone the hearing.