在加拿大
In Kanes v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (1993), 72 F.T.R. 226 (F.C.T.D.), Cullen J. held that the delay in processing the applicant's claim was unreasonable not because of its specific duration, but because it resulted in a severe substantive detriment to the applicant following a legislative amendment. He stated at paragraph 26 that, in such circumstances, "the change in the legislation cannot be used to operate to the detriment of the applicant." Likewise, in Meikle v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 137 F.T.R. 304 (F.C.T.D.), Heald D.J. ruled [at paragraph 17] that a delay of 20 months was unreasonable where it "had the effect of depriving the applicant of rights already vested in him".Kanes一案中，拖延处理是不合理的，不是因为期限长，而是对申请人导致了特别实质性的损害（在变法之后），在这种情况下，“法规的变动不能被用于损害申请人”。类似的，在Meikle 诉. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997)一案中，Heald判决“20个月的拖延是不合理的，这已起到剥夺申请人权利之效果”
评论
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]他们欺瞒上帝偷偷拨回时间They fool God secretly timing of the reversal 赏
反馈:金jj 2012-04-01#2 A 224 $0.00 回复: 举两个案例，大家研究下，当前危局下可能有用顶一下 希望对大家有帮助评论
回复: 举两个案例，大家研究下，当前危局下可能有用这个是正道，难兄难弟们都来瞧瞧~~
·新西兰汽车 全新电蒸煮锅
·新西兰汽车 婚纱出售