Docket: A-34-26
Citation: 2026 FCA 100
Present: LOCKE J.A.
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ALEXANDRE PAPOUCHINE
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
COLLEGE OF IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP CONSULTANTS,
CANADA (MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES and CITIZENSHIP) and CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL)
|
|
Respondents
|
REASONS FOR ORDER
LOCKE J.A.
[1] On May 4, 2026, Mr. Papouchine submitted an informal motion record seeking (i) an extension of time to accommodate his disability, and (ii) an Order that the respondent College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants (CICC) pay for his representation and for a transcript of a hearing.
[2] Mr. Papouchine’s motion appears to have been prompted by my Order dated March 24, 2026 (the March 24 Order) setting deadlines for Mr. Papouchine to file either (i) a copy of an agreement as to the content of the appeal book, or (ii) in the event that no such agreement was reached, a motion to determine the content of the appeal book.
[3] By letter dated May 5, 2026, the CICC filed informal submissions opposing Mr. Papouchine’s motion and requesting that the present appeal be dismissed for failing to respect the deadlines set in the March 24 Order. Mr. Papouchine replied to the CICC’s letter with his own letter also dated May 5, 2026. I have considered all of these submissions.
[4] The March 24 Order noted the limited information or evidence available to the Court about the nature of Mr. Papouchine’s disability or his age, or any link between his disability or his age and his difficulty in respecting deadlines. Despite this, Mr. Papouchine’s present motion record provides very little additional information in this regard. The documentary evidence of his disability appears to be limited to two doctor’s letters:
-
A letter dated March 21, 2025 from Dr. Maximillian Mulakandov of WELL Health Clinic Network stating that Mr. Papouchine “has been diagnosed with depression and a stress reaction”
; and
-
A letter dated April 2, 2026 from Dr. Michael Verbora of Seneca Medical Centre stating that Mr. Papouchine was a new patient who requires “some supports and accommodations”
after advising the doctor that he “underwent a stressful event in February (and brought some supporting files) that caused him to suffer from a medical condition preventing him from performing academically.”
[5] As to Mr. Papouchine’s age, the doctor’s letters indicate that he is 57 years old. He provides no explanation as to why or how that should be considered.
[6] I noted in the March 24 Order, and remain of the view, that Mr. Papouchine does not appear to have any difficulty in promptly preparing submissions to the Court, at least concerning the need for an extension of time. I recognize that Mr. Papouchine may require more time than is contemplated in the Rules to complete certain steps, but additional time was already given in the March 24 Order. The March 24 Order also indicated that the Court is not prepared to leave the timetable of the present appeal up to Mr. Papouchine’s discretion, and that the extended deadlines set therein were peremptory, such that any failure to meet them could result in dismissal of this appeal without further notice to Mr. Papouchine.
[7] The deadlines for filing either an agreement on the content of the appeal book or a motion to determine its content have now passed without any responsive filings from Mr. Papouchine other than the present motion.
[8] The motion record and the accompanying evidence of its service were received by the Registry but not filed because (i) the motion record was not compliant with Rule 364 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106 (the Rules), specifically because it lacks a table of contents, a notice of motion and written representations, and (ii) the evidence of service was not compliant with the requirements of Rule 146. I recognize that Mr. Papouchine has difficulty complying with formal requirements of the Rules, and he seems to require accommodation in that regard. Therefore, his informal motion record, together with the evidence of its service, should be accepted for filing. However, it is clear to me that no further extension of time is justified to accommodate Mr. Papouchine.
[9] The Court recognizes that the CICC requests the dismissal of the present appeal for failing to respect deadlines, but the CICC has made no formal motion in that regard. I am of the view that Mr. Papouchine should have a final opportunity to argue that his appeal should not be dismissed, or alternatively to file either an agreement on the content of the appeal book or a motion to determine its content. I will give Mr. Papouchine a further 20 days to do this.
[10] I will dismiss Mr. Papouchine’s request for an extension of time.
[11] I will also dismiss the aspect of Mr. Papouchine’s motion that seeks an Order that the CICC pay for his representation and for a transcript of a hearing. As regards the transcript, Mr. Papouchine has not explained why it would be necessary to prepare one instead of simply relying on whatever recording of the hearing might already exist from which the transcript would have been prepared. Regarding the payment for his representation, I am not convinced that, despite Mr. Papouchine’s personal circumstances, the facts of this case justify the highly unusual step of ordering a respondent to pay for its opponent’s representation. Mr. Papouchine has shown himself to be capable of arguing his own case, and he has not demonstrated how his case is of public interest or falls within the “narrow class of exceptional cases”
for which such relief of “last resort”
is warranted: British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371 at para. 36; Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue), 2007 SCC 2, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 38 at para. 36; Anderson v. Alberta, 2022 SCC 6, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 29 at para. 37.
"George R. Locke"
Email this Content