Date: 20030725
Docket: IMM-1338-00
Citation: 2003 FC 921
OTTAWA, ONTARIO, THIS 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2003
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LEMIEUX
BETWEEN:
ROGELIO CUEVAS FUENTES
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] I have considered the requests to certify questions following my decision to allow the application for judicial review.
[2] These requests were made to the Court by letters dated June 28, 2002 and April 15, 2003 from counsel for the respondent and one dated July 5, 2002 from counsel for the applicant.
[3] I do not consider the questions proposed by counsel appropriate for certification for the following reasons.
[4] Counsel jointly proposed the following question:
What is the standard of review for an Adjucator's finding that certain evidence constitutes reasonable grounds to believe that an organization has engaged in terrorism?
[5] It is my view the Federal Court of Appeal recently settled this point in Harb v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 CAF 39 at paragraph 14.
[6] As to the other questions for certification proposed, they do not meet the test set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Liyanagamage v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 176 N.R. 4, where Justice Décary wrote the following at paragraph 4 of the reported reasons:
In order to be certified pursuant to subsection 83(1), a question must be one which, in the opinion of the motions judge, transcends the interests of the immediate parties to the litigation and contemplates issues of broad significance or general application (see the useful analysis of the concept of "importance" by Catzman J. in Rankin v. McLeod, Young, Weir Ltd. et al. (1986), 57 O.R. (2d) 569 (Ont. H.C.)) but it must also be one that is determinative of the appeal. The certification process contemplated by s. 83 of the Immigration Act is neither to be equated with the reference process established by s. 18.3 of the Federal Court Act, nor is it to be used as a tool to obtain from the Court of Appeal declaratory judgments on fine questions which need not be decided in order to dispose of a particular case.
[7] In particular, I agree with counsel for the respondent that the applicant's proposed questions do not arise on the facts of this case.
[8] On the other hand, I agree with counsel for the applicant that the respondent's proposed questions contained in her counsel's letter of April 15, 2003 have either been settled by the Supreme Court of Canada in Suresh v. Canada, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3 (as to the first two proposed questions) and answering the third proposed question would not be determinative of the appeal.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that none of the proposed questions will be certified.
« François Lemieux »
Judge
COURTS ADMINISTRATION SERVICE
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1338-00
STYLE OF CAUSE : ROGELIO CUEVAS FUENTES and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING : Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING : June 18, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LEMIEUX
DATED : July 25, 2003
APPEARANCES :
Mr. Jack Martin FOR THE APPLICANT
Ms. Amina Riaz and
Mr. David Tyndale FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD :
Mr. Jack Martin FOR THE APPLICANT
Toronto, Ontario
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
Email this Content