Last Updated on décembre 3, 2016
2009 FC 935
September 21, 2009
Principle Established: Responsibility of advising email address change is on applicant
Applicant is a citizen of India who applied for permanent residency under the skilled-worker class. Included with her application was an authorization to deal with her representative. During the process, the representative sent a fax to the High Commission providing a new postal address for his office, the telephone and fax numbers remained unchanged, but it contained no information about e-mail address.
The CHC sent a request for additional information to the representative’s email address.
The applicant failed to reply to this request and her visa application was refused. The applicant asserts that neither she nor her representative ever received the e-mail. The representative argued that CHC must bear the risk because they have always used regular mail to communicate with him and he reasonably assumed that this practice would continue.
The Judge found that it was not reasonable for the representative to expect CHC to figure out that his e-mail was no longer functioning. It was also not correct to assume that CHC would continue to communicate by regular mail.
The representative should have advised CHC that the previously identified e-mail address was no longer valid.
When a communication is correctly sent by a visa officer to an address (e-mail or otherwise) that has been provided by an applicant which has not been revoked or revised and where there has been no indication received that the communication may have failed, CHC cannot be held responsible.
Application for Judicial review was dismissed.
CHC: Canadian High Commission