Justice Blanchard对ZHU案的判决书的相关段落：
[44] In my view, subsection 87.4(1) is not applicable in the circumstances. The provision
cannot serve to strike a validly rendered visa officer's decision. The provision expressly deals
with undecided applications, not decisions. While it is true that Mr. Zhu's application remained
undecided after March 29, 2012, a decision was rendered by the Officer on May 17, 2012 before
the provision was passed into law, Had the application not been decided before subsection 87.4(1)
was passed into law, then the application would have been tenninated. At the time the decision was
rendered, the law was not in effect and the decision was valid.
[45] Section 87.4 of the IRPA does not address the specific circumstance of Mr. Zhu's
application. There is no transitional provision to address applications that were decided after
March 29, 2012 and before the new provisions were passed into law on June 29, 2012. 'The
provision deals with undecided applications .and does not provide for nullification of lawfully
rendered decisions of visa officers. Parliament would have had to expressly provide for such a
result in the amended legislation.
[46] The Respondent concedes that subsection 87.4(5) doesn.ot preclude judicial review of the
Officer's decision b\.lt argues that a remedy cannot be granted on review due to the operation of
section 87.4 of the IRP A. In my view, this position is inconsistent and untenable. Judicial review
necessalily involves the granting of an appropriate remedy when a reviewable error is fOlmd in the
rendering ofa decision. In my view~ if Parliament wished to limit the remedies available on judicial
review in such cases, it would have to do so expressly in the statutory scheme. Neither subsection
87.4(2) nor subsection 87.4(5) operate to preclude a remedy on judicial review in circumstances
where subsection 87.4(1) does not apply.
[44] In my view, subsection 87.4(1) is not applicable in the circumstances. The provision
cannot serve to strike a validly rendered visa officer's decision. The provision expressly deals
with undecided applications, not decisions. While it is true that Mr. Zhu's application remained
undecided after March 29, 2012, a decision was rendered by the Officer on May 17, 2012 before
the provision was passed into law, Had the application not been decided before subsection 87.4(1)
was passed into law, then the application would have been tenninated. At the time the decision was
rendered, the law was not in effect and the decision was valid.
[45] Section 87.4 of the IRPA does not address the specific circumstance of Mr. Zhu's
application. There is no transitional provision to address applications that were decided after
March 29, 2012 and before the new provisions were passed into law on June 29, 2012. 'The
provision deals with undecided applications .and does not provide for nullification of lawfully
rendered decisions of visa officers. Parliament would have had to expressly provide for such a
result in the amended legislation.
[46] The Respondent concedes that subsection 87.4(5) doesn.ot preclude judicial review of the
Officer's decision b\.lt argues that a remedy cannot be granted on review due to the operation of
section 87.4 of the IRP A. In my view, this position is inconsistent and untenable. Judicial review
necessalily involves the granting of an appropriate remedy when a reviewable error is fOlmd in the
rendering ofa decision. In my view~ if Parliament wished to limit the remedies available on judicial
review in such cases, it would have to do so expressly in the statutory scheme. Neither subsection
87.4(2) nor subsection 87.4(5) operate to preclude a remedy on judicial review in circumstances
where subsection 87.4(1) does not apply.
