The value of providing the Citizenship and Immigration Canada (“CIC”) and its constituents with correct mailing, e-mail, and other contact information is eloquently echoed in two cases in which different results were reached as a result of the different efforts made by the parties to inform the CIC with their contact information.
In the Mamedov v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) decision, the Appellant stated that he did not receive the Notice to Appear. The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) found evidence that the Notice to Appear was served at the address noted as the address on record for the Appellant. There is a presumption in such cases that document is sent and served (Ghaloghlyan v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 1252 (CanLII)). In the Mamedov decision, the IAD’s history of correctly mailing notices to the appellant’s address of record, the history of correctly receiving correspondence from the IAD, and the appellant’s late and inattentive approach to pursuing his appeal when he did receive the notice of his hearing, led the IDA to decide that the presumption of service was not rebutted by the appellant.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/irb/doc/2015/2015canlii38777/2015canlii38777.html
In Asoyan v. Canada ( Canada and Immigration) decision, the applicant indicated to the CIC that she was having trouble receiving e-mails from CIC. However, in spite of that, the CIC kept sending her emails to the same email address. The Federal Court decided that it was CIC’s duty to ensure that the applicant received the emails at a proper email address knowing that the applicant was having trouble receiving the same.
Therefore, correct and updated contact must be provided to the CIC and its constituents at all times.