Singh v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FedCFamC2G 551

Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

1. Before the Court is an application for judicial review of a decision of the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) made on 9 May 2018 affirming a decision of a delegate of the (then) Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Minister) to cancel the applicant's Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 573) visa under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act)[1]. The delegate's cancellation decision made on 7 August 2017, was based on the applicant's breach of a visa condition concerning permissible hours of work.

1. The applicant is a citizen of India: Court Book (CB) 105 who was granted a student visa on 22 September 2015: CB81 to pursue a master's degree in computer technology: CB87. The visa was to expire on 21 May 2018 and imposed various conditions on the applicant, including condition 8105: CB81; CB85. The terms of condition 8105 are contained in Sch 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations)[2] which relevantly provides:

8105 (1A) The holder must not engage in any work in Australia before the holder's course of study commences.

(1) Subject to subclause (2), the holder must not engage in work in Australia for more than 40 hours a fortnight during any fortnight when the holder's course of study or training is in session.

(2) Subclause (1) does not apply:

(a) to work that was specified as a requirement of the course when the course particulars were entered in the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students; and

(b) in relation to a student visa granted in relation to a masters degree by research or doctoral degree if the holder has commenced the masters degree by research or doctoral degree.

(3) In this clause:

fortnight means the period of 14 days commencing on a Monday.

1. On 7 August 2017, an Australian Border Force (Border Force) officer contacted the applicant and he was provided a 'Notice of intention to consider cancellation' (Notice). The Notice informed the applicant that a delegate of the Minister was considering cancelling his visa pursuant to s 116(1)(b) of the Act because he failed to comply with a visa condition: CB81-CB102. The Notice followed an investigation by Border Force which found the applicant had been employed and regularly worked for several hours more than the amount permitted under condition 8105. Border Force obtained evidence from the applicant's employers during the relevant period (that is, from two separate employers concurrently) including in the form of payslips, which evidenced that the applicant had worked more than 40 hours per fortnight across periods where the applicant's course of study was 'in session': CB85 including the fortnights falling between 9 January 2017 and 11 June 2017.
2. The applicant's visa was subsequently cancelled by a delegate of the Minister on 7 August 2017 following provision of the Notice to the applicant at 1:48 pm that day, which was preceded by a telephone interview: CB87. The applicant was also notified of the cancellation on 7 August 2017: CB98.
3. On 10 August 2017, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the cancellation decision: CB103-CB104 with the assistance of a migration agent.

1. The Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the application by email sent to the applicant's migration agent on 14 August 2017: CB107-CB108 attaching a letter to the applicant which stated, inter alia, that the applicant should provide the Tribunal with any material or written arguments he wished it to consider in determining the review as soon as possible: CB109.
2. By letter dated 13 March 2019, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing to give evidence and present arguments relating to the application for review scheduled for 29 April 2019 at 2:00 pm: CB113. The letter stated that the Tribunal had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on the basis of that material alone, and requested the applicant complete and return the enclosed 'Response to hearing invitation - MR Division' form within seven days of receipt: CB114. By their migration agent, the applicant returned the completed invitation to the Tribunal on 22 April 2019. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a statement: CB148-CB150 and further evidence in support of his application on 28 April 2019: CB120 including:
   • some medical records pertaining to his father: CB121-CB137;
   • documents confirming the applicant's enrolment in different higher education courses in Australia from time to time: CB138-CB146; and
   • a letter of recommendation/statement of service from one of the applicant's employers: CB147.
3. The applicant's written submissions to the Tribunal contended that the applicant breached his visa conditions relating to hours of work in order to financially support his parents whilst his father was suffering from ill health: CB148. The applicant also explained that he was "not able to cope" with the course he had originally come to Australia to study, and that he had instead decided to pursue his interest in the hospitality industry: CB149.
4. On 29 April 2019, the applicant attended the hearing with his migration agent, and was assisted throughout the proceeding by a Punjabi interpreter: CB151. Following the hearing, the applicant provided the Tribunal with bank statements with various transfers to international accounts highlighted: CB156-CB162.

1. By letter dated 10 May 2019, the Tribunal notified the applicant that it had decided to affirm the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's visa: CB164-CB166 and attached a copy of the Tribunal's Statement of Decision and Reasons (Decision): CB167-CB171.
2. At [2] of the Decision, the Tribunal recited the task it was required to undertake - to determine on the basis of the evidence whether the ground for cancellation is made out under s 116(1)(b) of the Act, and if that ground were made out, whether the power ought be exercised. The Tribunal noted that the power to cancel under s 116(1) is discretionary: at [6] and that the Tribunal is neither directed nor required by any Act or Regulations to consider any particular matter in assessing whether to exercise the cancellation power: at [15]. The Tribunal noted that in making the requisite assessment, it considered matters raised by the applicant, along with various matters contained in the policy document prepared by the Department: Procedures Advice Manual 'General Visa cancellation powers' (PAM3): at [15].
3. The Tribunal first found that the applicant had breached condition 8105, reasoning that the applicant's overlapping employment as a kitchen hand at both a café and hotel falls squarely within the definition of 'work' within the Regulations: at [7]-[10] of the Decision. The Tribunal found, and the applicant accepted at the hearing, that the applicant had worked several hours per fortnight which exceeded the limit of 40 hours per fortnight set by condition 8105: at [10]. Between 9 January 2017 and 11 June 2017, the applicant had worked hours exceeding the fortnightly limit in eight separate fortnights: at [12]. At the time, the applicant was no longer pursuing the master's degree - the original basis for the grant of his student visa - and was instead enrolled in a commercial cookery course.
4. The Tribunal next turned to consider whether, having established a breach of the visa condition, the discretion to cancel the applicant's visa should be exercised. The Member considered the various matters set out in PAM3, including as follows:

(1) the purpose of the applicant's travel and stay in Australia: Decision at [16]-[17] - the Tribunal was satisfied the applicant came to Australia on a student visa to study a computer technology course and that he changed his study to a commercial cookery course. The Tribunal noted:

• the absence of evidence about the applicant's participation or successful completion of assignments in his commercial cookery course;
• there was evidence the applicant was working extensive hours over a long period of time in 2017 when he was enrolled in his course; and
• the applicant said he came to Australia to obtain academic qualifications but had not obtained any qualification.

The Tribunal gave weight in the applicant's favour to the fact that cancelling the applicant's visa would prevent him from continuing his studies in Australia.

(2) the extent of compliance with the conditions: at [19] - the Tribunal recorded that the only evidence of non-compliance was with condition 8105 and weighed this consideration in favour of cancellation;

(3) the degree of hardship which may follow cancellation: at [20]-[21] - as to the applicant's contention that his time in Australia would be 'wasted' if the visa was cancelled, the Tribunal ascribed this contention no weight. The Tribunal also recorded there was no medical evidence to support the applicant's claim he or his father would suffer stress if he had to return to India without a qualification. Nevertheless, the Tribunal ascribed some weight in the applicant's favour accepting that he would be stressed and would find it difficult to face his father if he had to return to India without a qualification;

(4) the circumstances of non-compliance: at [22]-[26] - the Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence that:

• he had to work the extra hours because of his father's health, which he sought to substantiate through some medical reports indicating his father had a heart problem and other conditions; and
• he had to work more than 40 hours per fortnight to provide financial support to his father, and that he arranged payments to his father, via his brother, through Western Union: [23]-[24].

The applicant provided the Tribunal with copies of bank statements from January 2017 to July 2017 to support his claims. The Tribunal noted the transfers did not record any transactions involving Western Union, nor was there any indication that the transfers were made to a family member. Noting the inconsistency between the applicant's oral evidence and the bank statements, the Tribunal was not satisfied the applicant breached condition 8105 to provide financial support to his father. The Tribunal observed that the medical reports did not indicate the applicant's father had been ill in 2017. The Tribunal reasoned that given the absence of evidence of any serious family circumstances or circumstances beyond the applicant's control at the time of his non-compliance, this consideration was given weight in favour of cancellation.

(5) the applicant's past and present behaviour towards the Department: at [27] - the Tribunal ascribed no weight to the applicant's initial denial that he was working for one of his employers at the relevant time, and otherwise ascribed weight in favour of the applicant to his cooperation with the Department; and

(6) the legal consequences of deciding to cancel the visa: at [28]-[29] - the Tribunal observed that cancellation would subject the applicant to an exclusion period under Public Interest Criterion 4013, and he otherwise could become an unlawful non-citizen (which would possibly put him at risk of detention). It weighed these matters favourable for the applicant.

1. The Tribunal found that, overall, the applicant's extent of non-compliance and the circumstances of non-compliance outweighed the reasons not to cancel the visa. The Tribunal did not accept the applicant's explanation for his conduct or the circumstances which, the applicant contended, compelled him to breach the visa condition. The Tribunal concluded that the delegate's decision to cancel the applicant's visa should be affirmed: Decision at [33].

1. The applicant's judicial review application sets out five grounds of review, preceded by a general assertion that the Tribunal's decision was attended by jurisdictional error. The grounds of review (which are also set out in the applicant's affidavit filed with the application) are reproduced verbatim below:
   1. Jurisdictional Error made by the AAT
   2. Ground 1: There was no evidence provided as to the applicant's participation or successful completion of assignments in the certificate III course in 2017.

The Honourable Tribunal member did not raise any concern about the studies or when she has requested me to provide the bank statement, she did not ask me to provide any study documents.

Though she asked me about the studies but never asked me to provide any evidence for it. The visa was cancelled due to work limitations and that is why I did not provide any documents of my studies before.

Ground 2: As the visa was cancelled by the Department and the applicant was consequently unable to study from late 2017 because the applicant breached the conditions of his student visa, I do not give this claim of 'wasted time' any weight in favour of the applicant.

One hand honourable Tribunal member has stated that I give weight in the applicant's favour to the circumstances that cancellation of the visa will prevent him from being able to continue his studies in Australia at this time and on the other hand she stated that she do not give weight in favour to the wasted time because I was not able to study. She understands that due to this visa cancellation it has my future blank and I am here fighting for it because I want to start again. There was a breach in condition, but it happened due to exceptional circumstances which was beyond my control.

Ground 3: The applicant stated both he and his father would suffer stress if he has to return to India at this time. There was no medical evidence to support this claim that either the applicant or his father would suffer stress if the applicant had to return.

The Honourable Tribunal member stated that there is no medical evidence that we would suffer stress if we return to India without getting the qualification for which I came for in Australia and spend my lots of time and money, How can a person give a medical evidence of the issue which he will get if things get worse. I also stated that my father is suffering from Heart problem and if I return to India without getting any qualification which will put very worse effect on my future, he will get stress as he is not strong enough to handle any sorts of bad situations or bad news. And if my father gets stress and his health deteriorated then whole family will be in stress and it can lead to serious issues. I am already in stress because I am here only doing part time job where I was supposed to complete my qualification and return to my home country to make my career and to help my family financially and start my family. Also, the Tribunal Member stated that she gives a weight to find it difficult to face his father if he had to return to India without achieving the studies he came here to achieve, and I give this weight in the applicant's favour. Then what is stress then? If she understands that I will not be able to face my parents, then it means that I will be in stress and it will worse my mental health. I have seen cases where many people take their own life because they cannot face their parents due to some unavoidable circumstances, but I do not want to face this, I want to fight for my career and better future. I made a mistake, but I was very innocent, unintentional and did not realise that I will adversely affect my career and my future. All I asked for is another chance, Education means Contemplate and reflect upon knowledge, and you will become a benefactor to others which I want to do.

Ground 4: After the hearing the applicant provided copies of his bank statements from 25 January 2017 to 26 July 2016. There were no records of transfers or withdrawals to Western Union. The applicant had underlined the records of withdrawals to Worldremit*AusSydney in the bank statements. The withdrawals do not record the money was sent to a family member. The applicant has not provided any records that the money was transferred to or received by a Case Number 1717546 Page 5 of 6 family member. I have considered the evidence, that includes the applicant gave oral evidence of providing financial support to his father at the time of the non-compliance through the use of bank card payments to Western union, which is not consistent with the documentary evidence provided by the applicant. I am not satisfied the applicant breached condition 8105 in order to provide financial support to his ill father. I do not accept the applicant's explanation for the extensive hours he worked in breach of the conditions of his visa when he was enrolled in a course of study

The Honourable Tribunal Member asked me to provide the bank statements which I have provided and highlighted the withdrawals made to the online money transfer company. So I the money was transferred overseas that means it has transferred to my family member, at the time my brother was looking after and he supposed to withdraw money from the overseas branch of the money transfer company. Due to my father's health my brother was looking after everything. I have not given any misleading information to Tribunal and hereby attach the world remit company screenshot that money was send to my family. I explained this to The Tribunal member, I don't know why she didn't consider. There are many companies who do international money transfer so at the time of hearing I just remember Western Union as some time I may have transferred from there as well, but I do not have records for that. I did online transfers to world remit for which I have attached the bank statement. It was hard for the Tribunal member to understand the money transfer procedure in this limbo she was not able to make a proper decision on it. Also, I am not satisfied that the Interpreter was conveying messages to the Tribunal member and to me appropriately and this where my representative sometime has to jump in to explain to the Tribunal member.

Ground 5: I have considered that the evidence and medical reports in relation to the applicant's father's ill health is that he was not ill in 2017

I have provided the Tribunal my father's medical reports from 2015 that he is a heart patient. So if anyone has an issue with heart it keeps on going and I explained this to Tribunal Member that he needs ongoing support. He was also operated for kidney stones and no problem come overnight. He is not al all a healthy person, he needs ongoing treatment for one or the other medical problem. He takes regular medications as well.

1. Despite orders of a Registrar of the Court enabling the applicant to file written submissions and further material in support of his application, the applicant has not done so. At the commencement of the hearing, I explained to the applicant the nature of the Court's judicial review jurisdiction. I explained that the Court may only grant relief if the applicant establishes the Tribunal's decision is affected by jurisdictional error and that the proceeding before the Court was not another opportunity to present his merits case nor was it a review of the merits of the Tribunal's decision or his visa application. I explained that jurisdictional error involved a "breach of an express or implied condition of a statutory conferral of decision-making authority" such that "it is 'in law ... no decision at all' and is in that sense 'void'": LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12, 98 ALJR 610 at [2]. And that jurisdictional error can take many different forms and that the categories are not closed. I gave the applicant some examples of jurisdictional error as including material errors by a decision-maker:

(a) misunderstanding the applicable law;

(b) asking the wrong question;

(c) exceeding the bounds of reasonableness;

(d) identifying a wrong issue;

(e) ignoring relevant material;

(f) relying on irrelevant material;

(g) failing to consider a "claim" or a relevant "integer" of a claim;

(h) in some cases, making an erroneous finding or reaching a mistaken conclusion;

(i) failing to observe some applicable requirement of procedural fairness; and

(j) showing actual or there is apprehended bias.

1. At the hearing, the applicant largely repeated the matters set out in his grounds of review. Much of his oral presentation engaged with the merits of the Tribunal's finding and conclusion rather than addressing the Court on how the applicant says the Tribunal's decision is attended by jurisdictional error. I consider the applicant's grounds of review below.

1. By ground 1, the applicant complains about the Tribunal's finding that the applicant did not provide evidence about his participation or successful completion of assignments in the Certificate III course in 2017. He says the Tribunal erred in failing to invite him to provide evidence before so concluding. This, is in substance, a contention that the Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness and perhaps also, that the Tribunal failed to perform its duty by not making an inquiry about the existence of evidence. As to the latter, the duty imposed on the Tribunal by the Act is a duty to review: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI [2009] HCA 39 at [25]. A failure to make an obvious inquiry about a critical fact, the existence of which is easily ascertained, could, in some circumstances, supply a sufficient link to the outcome to constitute a failure to review, and such a failure could give rise to jurisdictional error by constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction: SZIAI at [25]; Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51, 207 CLR 391 at 453 [189] and the authorities cited therein. But the Tribunal is not obliged to conduct an inquiry to discover whether the applicant's case might be better put or supported by other evidence: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNVW [2010] FCAFC 41, 183 FCR 575 at [36], [49].
2. Reading the Tribunal's reasons fairly and as a whole, this finding was not particularly material to the Tribunal's overall conclusion. The Tribunal's absence of evidence finding concerned the applicant's participation in and completion of courses, and it was not a matter the Tribunal considered was to be weighed adversely to the applicant. The Tribunal made the finding during its consideration of the applicant's purpose in travelling and staying in Australia, noting the applicant's contention that he had travelled to Australia to obtain a qualification but had yet to fulfill that purpose: Decision at [16]. The Tribunal ultimately weighed the consideration in the applicant's favour noting "that cancellation of the visa will prevent him from being able to continue his studies in Australia": at [18]. As to any denial of procedural fairness, the following matters tell strongly against such a contention. First, the applicant did not ask the Tribunal for any further time to provide evidence about his course participation. Second, the applicant was invited to provide the Tribunal with any material he wanted the Tribunal to consider: CB109. Third, the applicant was invited to attend a hearing and to provide the Tribunal with any additional documents or information on which he may wish to rely during the hearing: CB113-CB114. Fourth, the applicant was represented during the hearing by a migration agent. Consequently, there is no evident procedural fairness error.
3. Therefore, ground 1 does not disclose jurisdictional error and fails.

1. By ground 2, the applicant appears to complain that the Tribunal erred in not giving weight to the applicant's claim that visa cancellation would mean his time in Australia was 'wasted'. He also suggests that the failure to give the matter any weight is inconsistent with the Tribunal ascribing weight favourable to the applicant because cancellation of the visa will mean the applicant will not be able to complete his studies.
2. Complaints about the weight ascribed to a particular and relevant matter by the Tribunal does not sound in jurisdictional error. The weight given to a particular matter is ultimately a matter for the Tribunal subject to some qualification. As Mason J explained in Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Another v Peko-Wallsend Limited and Others [1986] HCA 40, 162 CLR 24 at 41.

. . . in the absence of any statutory indication of the weight to be given to various considerations, it is generally for the decision-maker and not the court to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the matters which are required to be taken into account in exercising the statutory power . . . I say "generally" because both principle and authority indicate that in some circumstances a court may set aside an administrative decision which has failed to give adequate weight to a relevant factor of great importance, or has given excessive weight to a relevant factor of no great importance. The preferred ground on which this is done, however, is not the failure to take into account relevant considerations or the taking into account of irrelevant considerations, but that the decision is "manifestly unreasonable".

(citations omitted)

1. There is also no inconsistency as alleged. The matters said to be inconsistent are, as the first respondent correctly contends, directed to different considerations under the PAM3 policy framework and are in answer to separate questions, and are not therefore in conflict with one another. The Tribunal's decision to give no weight to the applicant's "waste of time" claim: Decision at [20], was made while considering the degree of hardship he might suffer if the visa was cancelled. In assigning no weight, the Tribunal reasoned that giving no weight was appropriate because if the applicant left Australia without a qualification, it was because he breached the working hours condition. The conclusion was open involving an evaluative assessment. The weight ascribed by the Tribunal to its conclusion that the applicant would be unable to complete his studies because of the cancellation, was made while considering the applicant's purpose in travelling to and staying in Australia. Here, the Tribunal reasoned that as his purpose was to obtain a qualification and he had not to that date done so, his purpose of travelling to and staying in Australia would not be fulfilled - an obvious conclusion. And the weight the Tribunal ascribed about which the applicant does not complain was plainly an available option. Ground 2 does not disclose jurisdictional error and fails.

1. By ground 3, the applicant complains, in substance, that the Tribunal erred in finding there was no medical evidence that he and his father would suffer stress in the event of cancellation. The Tribunal was correct - there was no evidence. But it is a peculiar finding. One would unlikely encounter medical evidence asserting definitively that a particular medical condition will result (whether to an applicant or a third party) if a visa is cancelled or the applicant returns to India unqualified. Equally, the contention (relating to the applicant's father) was a bare assertion, and the Tribunal was entitled to give it no weight. Ultimately, the Tribunal gave some weight favouring the applicant's finding that he would likely be stressed because he would find it difficult to face his father on returning to India without a qualification. More generally, ground 3 is in substance a complaint about the merits of the Tribunal's decision and does not disclose jurisdictional error. Consequently, ground 3 fails.

1. By ground 4, the applicant contends the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant's explanation that he had sent money to his family members and misunderstood his evidence about the 'money transfer procedure', and the interpreter did not appropriately convey the applicant's evidence to the Tribunal. As to the last matter, the applicant has not provided any evidence by way of a transcript or audio recording of the Tribunal's proceeding to support his claim that the interpretation at the Tribunal hearing was inadequate. He also told the Court that he was aware of the problem with the interpretation he alleges was inadequate during the Tribunal hearing, but did not raise the matter with the Tribunal, with the interpreter or with his migration agent. There is plainly no basis upon which I could conclude such an error was made, much less to conclude that the error, if made, deprived the applicant of a real opportunity to participate in the Tribunal proceeding.
2. The Tribunal made its findings about the transfer of funds to the applicant's family based on the evidence given by the applicant at the hearing, and the evidence provided subsequently. The Tribunal noted the inconsistency in the vehicle of transfer given by the applicant in oral evidence, and that disclosed from the bank statements subsequently provided. The applicant told the Court that he had misspoken during his oral evidence to the Tribunal about the vehicle used to transfer funds. But he said he did not clarify this when sending the statements to the Tribunal. The Tribunal's rejection of the applicant's contention was open on the paucity of evidence. The bank statements themselves show only withdrawal of funds. No indication is provided about the recipient much less the purpose of the transfer. Ground 4 does not disclose jurisdictional error and fails.

1. By ground 5, the applicant joins issue with the Tribunal's finding that the applicant's father was 'not ill' in 2017, in circumstances where his father had heart issues that were 'ongoing'. The Tribunal's decision at [22] summarised the medical records the applicant provided which concerned his father as follows:

. . . The applicant stated that he had to work the extra hours because of his father's health. The applicant provided medical reports that recorded his father had a heart problem and had a stent inserted in October 2015, and had suffered a kidney stone and operation in 2018.

1. It is accepted there were records before the Tribunal dated to 2017: CB121-CB137. These are not expressly mentioned in the Decision. However, two post-date the period of the applicant's non-compliance with the visa condition (which was 9 January 2017 and 11 June 2017) while the third is only 3 weeks short of the end of the period and could not explain breaches that occurred earlier in the period. In so far as the bank statements purport to show that money was sent to the applicant's father in India, the dates the money appears to have been sent by the applicant are prior to the period which the medical evidence demonstrates that the applicant's father was diagnosed and admitted to hospital: CB136 and CB156-CB162, respectively. Moreover, the documents do no more than show he consulted a cardiologist - they do not corroborate the applicant's claim that his father was ill at that time or during the period of the applicant's breach of condition 8105. The Tribunal's finding was open on the evidence and so ground 5 does not disclose jurisdictional error and fails.
2. As the applicant was unrepresented before the Court, I have reviewed the Tribunal's decision and the material in the CB filed by the first respondent with an eye to identifying jurisdictional error beyond merely dealing with the applicant's grounds of review, but I have not identified any such error.
3. Consequently, the judicial review application will be dismissed.

1. The first respondent sought an award of costs in the amount of $5,700.00 in the event the application failed. The amount is less than that currently fixed by item 3, Pt 2, Div 1 of Sch 2 to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) for a migration matter determined at final hearing. There was no cogent reason advanced why such an order ought not be made and I consider the amount sought to be reasonable and reflective of the costs incurred by the first respondent. The applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs fixed in the sum of $5,700.00.

I certify that the preceding thirty-one (31) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Gostencnik.

[1] Unless otherwise specified or the context otherwise requires, any reference to the Act is a reference to the Act as it was then in force.

[2] Unless otherwise specified or the context otherwise requires, any reference to the Regulations is a reference to the Regulations as it was then in force.