Date: 20061115
Citation: 2006 FC 1384
Ottawa, Ontario, November 15, 2006
Present:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais
BETWEEN:
NKANGURA
TWAGIRAYEZU OLIVIER
Applicant
and
MINISTER
OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
[1]
This is a
motion by the applicant for an extension of time under section 397 of the Federal
Courts Rules.
RELEVANT FACTS
[2]
The
refugee claim was rejected on July 17, 2006.
[3]
The
applicant filed an application for leave and judicial review on August 8, 2006.
Under the Federal Courts Rules (the Rules), he had until September 7,
2006, to serve and file his record.
[5]
On
September 11, 2006, counsel for the respondent replied in writing that he would
not consent to an extension of time.
[6]
On
September 25, 2006, the Honourable Mr. Justice Michel Beaudry of the Federal
Court dismissed the application for leave on the ground that the applicant had
failed to file his record.
[7]
On October
20, 2006, the applicant’s new counsel, Omer Malonga, served a motion on the
respondent requesting [TRANSLATION] “that the Court
reconsider a
decision pursuant to section 397 of the Rules, including an extension of time
to file the applicant’s notice of motion and record for an order granting leave
to file the applicant’s record.”
ISSUE
[8]
Should the
Court grant an extension of time to file the applicant’s record after the
deadline has expired, and after the Court has dismissed the application for
leave on the ground that the applicant failed to file his record?
[9]
At the
outset, it should be noted that the provisions of section 397 do not apply to a
motion for an extension of time. Section 397 states:
|
397. (1) Within 10 days after the making of an order, or
within such other time as the Court may allow, a party may serve and file a
notice of motion to request that the Court, as constituted at the time the
order was made, reconsider its terms on the ground that
|
397. (1) Dans les 10 jours après qu’une ordonnance a été
rendue ou dans tout autre délai accordé par la Cour, une partie peut
signifier et déposer un avis de requête demandant à la Cour qui a rendu
l’ordonnance, telle qu’elle était constituée à ce moment, d’en examiner de
nouveau les termes, mais seulement pour l’une ou l’autre des raisons
suivantes:
|
|
(a) the order does not accord with any reasons given for
it; or
|
a)
l’ordonnance ne concorde pas avec les motifs qui, le cas échéant, ont été
donnés pour la justifier;
|
|
(b) a matter that should have been dealt with has been
overlooked or accidentally omitted.
|
b)
une question qui aurait dû être traitée a été oubliée ou omise
involontairement.
|
|
Mistakes
|
Erreurs
|
|
(2) Clerical mistakes,
errors or omissions in an order may at any time be corrected by the Court.
|
(2) Les fautes de transcription,
les erreurs et les omissions contenues dans les ordonnances peuvent être
corrigées à tout moment par la Cour.
|
Moreover, section 399 states:
|
399. (1) On motion, the Court may set aside or vary an order
that was made
|
399. (1) La Cour peut, sur requête, annuler ou modifier l’une
des ordonnances suivantes, si la partie contre laquelle elle a été rendue
présente une preuve prima facie démontrant pourquoi elle n’aurait pas
dû être rendue:
|
|
(a) ex parte; or
|
a)
toute ordonnance rendue sur requête ex parte;
|
|
(b) in the absence of a party who failed to appear by
accident or mistake or by reason of insufficient notice of the proceeding, if
the party against whom the order is made discloses a prima facie case
why the order should not have been made.
|
b)
toute ordonnance rendue en l’absence d’une partie qui n’a pas comparu par
suite d’un événement fortuit ou d’une erreur ou à cause d’un avis insuffisant
de l’instance.
|
|
Setting
aside or variance
|
Annulation
|
|
(2) On motion, the Court may
set aside or vary an order
|
(2) La Cour peut, sur
requête, annuler ou modifier une ordonnance dans l’un ou l’autre des cas
suivants:
|
|
(a) by reason of a matter that arose or was discovered
subsequent to the making of the order; or
|
a)
des faits nouveaux sont survenus ou ont été découverts après que l’ordonnance
a été rendue;
|
|
(b) where the order was obtained by fraud.
|
b)
l’ordonnance a été obtenue par fraude.
|
|
Effect
of order
|
Effet
de l’ordonnance
|
|
(3) Unless the Court orders
otherwise, the setting aside or variance of an order under
subsection (1) or (2) does not affect the validity or character of
anything done or not done before the order was set aside or varied.
|
(3) Sauf ordonnance contraire
de la Cour, l’annulation ou la modification d’une ordonnance en vertu des
paragraphes (1) ou (2) ne porte pas atteinte à la validité ou à la
nature des actes ou omissions antérieurs à cette annulation ou modification.
|
[10]
First, it
is important to review the decision made on September 25, 2006. The decision of
Beaudry J. is final and not subject to appeal. Subsections 72(1) and (2) and
section 74 of the
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act) apply in the
circumstances:
|
72. (1) Judicial review by the Federal Court
with respect to any matter — a decision, determination or order made, a measure
taken or a question raised — under this Act is commenced by making an
application for leave to the Court.
|
72. (1) Le contrôle judiciaire par la Cour
fédérale de toute mesure — décision, ordonnance, question ou affaire — prise
dans le cadre de la présente loi est subordonné au dépôt d’une demande
d’autorisation.
|
|
(2) The
following provisions govern an application under subsection (1):
|
(2) Les
dispositions suivantes s’appliquent à la demande d’autorisation:
|
|
(a) the
application may not be made until any right of appeal that may be provided by
this Act is exhausted;
|
a) elle ne peut être présentée tant que les voies d’appel
ne sont pas épuisées;
|
|
(b)
subject to paragraph 169( f), notice of the application shall be
served on the other party and the application shall be filed in the Registry
of the Federal Court (“the Court”) within 15 days, in the case of a matter
arising in Canada, or within 60 days, in the case of a matter arising
outside Canada, after the day on which the applicant is notified of or otherwise
becomes aware of the matter;
|
b) elle doit être signifiée à l’autre partie puis déposée
au greffe de la Cour fédérale — la Cour — dans les quinze ou soixante jours,
selon que la mesure attaquée a été rendue au Canada ou non, suivant, sous
réserve de l’alinéa 169f), la date où le demandeur en est avisé
ou en a eu connaissance;
|
|
(c) a
judge of the Court may, for special reasons, allow an extended time for
filing and serving the application or notice;
|
c) le délai peut toutefois être prorogé, pour motifs valables,
par un juge de la Cour;
|
|
(d) a
judge of the Court shall dispose of the application without delay and in a
summary way and, unless a judge of the Court directs otherwise, without
personal appearance; and
|
d) il est statué sur la demande à bref délai et selon la
procédure sommaire et, sauf autorisation d’un juge de la Cour, sans
comparution en personne;
|
|
(e) no
appeal lies from the decision of the Court with respect to the application or
with respect to an interlocutory judgment.
|
e) le jugement sur la demande et toute décision
interlocutoire ne sont pas susceptibles d’appel
|
|
74. Judicial review is subject to the following
provisions:
|
74. Les règles suivantes s’appliquent à la
demande de contrôle judiciaire:
|
|
(a) the
judge who grants leave shall fix the day and place for the hearing of the
application;
|
a) le juge qui accueille la demande d’autorisation fixe
les date et lieu d’audition de la demande;
|
|
(b) the
hearing shall be no sooner than 30 days and no later than 90 days
after leave was granted, unless the parties agree to an earlier day;
|
b) l’audition ne peut être tenue à moins de trente jours —
sauf consentement des parties — ni à plus de quatre-vingt-dix jours de la
date à laquelle la demande d’autorisation est accueillie;
|
|
(c) the
judge shall dispose of the application without delay and in a summary way;
and
|
c) le juge statue à bref délai et selon la procédure
sommaire;
|
|
(d) an
appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal may be made only if, in rendering
judgment, the judge certifies that a serious question of general importance
is involved and states the question.
|
d) le jugement consécutif au contrôle judiciaire n’est
susceptible d’appel en Cour d’appel fédérale que si le juge certifie que
l’affaire soulève une question grave de portée générale et énonce celle-ci.
|
[11]
It is
clear from the provisions of the Act that the decisions are not subject to
appeal unless a question has been certified.
[12]
The
application of sections 397 to 399 of the Rules is the next consideration.
[13]
In fact,
there is also a time period for filing a notice of motion under section 397,
and the time period is ten days. This period expired on October 6, 2006, and
the motion was filed more than two weeks later.
[14]
As counsel
for the respondent properly submitted, strict conditions apply to reconsideration
of an order: the order does not accord with any reasons given for it, or a
matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally
omitted. There is also no error here resulting from a clerical mistake that
might have slipped in when the judgment was being drafted. There is nothing in
the motion to indicate that the Court overlooked an issue or accidentally
omitted to consider a document or a piece of evidence.
[15]
Both the
Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal have repeatedly held that
section 397 may not be used to indirectly appeal a decision that is not
itself subject to appeal.
[16]
Section
399 of the Rules does not apply here, since no order was made ex parte
or in the absence of a party who failed to appear by accident or mistake or by
reason of insufficient notice of the proceeding.
[17]
This is
not a case where the order was obtained by fraud. The applicant appears to
suggest that paragraph 399(2)(a) applies, because new matters have
arisen or were discovered subsequent to the making of the order. The applicant
argues that something unforeseen could have happened, whether natural, social,
political or administrative in nature, that prevented the applicant from
meeting his goals. He suggests that carelessness on the part of his former
solicitor of record, who did not advise his client that he could file his
record himself without the assistance of a lawyer, and the delay in legal aid’s
response are sufficient grounds for such a motion.
[18]
These
grounds are clearly without merit.
[19]
The courts
have rejected these grounds on numerous occasions: (see Rodriguez v. Canada
(M.C.I.), [2002] F.C.J. No. 435, Pistan v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2001]
F.C.J. No. 1132 and Melendez v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2005] F.C.J. No. 2031;
see also Boubarak v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1553, Chin
v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No.1033.
CONCLUSION
[20]
The
applicant has failed to persuade the Court that sections 397 and 399 of the
Rules apply in this case. The Court maintains that the decision of September
25, 2006, dismissing the application for leave and the application for judicial
review is a final decision, not subject to appeal, and that the motion for an
extension of time cannot be granted under the circumstances.
[21]
For all
these reasons, the motion should be dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The motion to reconsider under section
397 of the Federal Courts Rules, including an extension of time to file
the applicant’s notice of motion and record for an order granting leave to file
the applicant’s record is dismissed.
“Pierre
Blais”
Mary
Jo Egan, LLB
Email this Content