Date: 20030925
Docket: IMM-4789-03
Citation: 2003 FC 1099
Ottawa, Ontario, September 25, 2003
Present: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais
BETWEEN:
SURJIT SINGH WARAICH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion by Stephen M. Byer, immigration consultant, seeking leave to intervene in the instant application for leave.
BACKGROUND
[2] The applicant applied for recognition as a Convention refugee and was rejected by a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board rendered on May 18, 2001.
[3] On September 26, 2001, the applicant's application for leave and for judicial review of the Refugee Board decision was dismissed.
[4] The applicant subsequently filed an application for protection pursuant to section 112(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
[5] The applicant's application for protection was dismissed on January 16, 2003.
[6] On July 21, 2003, the applicant perfected his application for leave before the Federal Court. On August 20, 2003, the respondent served and filed his memorandum of argument.
[7] At this stage, the Court record is complete and ready do be adjudicated.
[8] As suggested in his written representations, the proposed intervener wishes to bring to the attention of this Court the urgency of certifying a serious question of general importance namely:
a) Should the Respondent, by summary procedure, treat and consider an Applicant's request for Protection given the serious consequences which could ensue against an Applicant as a result of him being forcibly expelled from Canada?
b) Is an Applicant requesting protection entitled under law to a full and complete hearing concerning his or her Application for Protection?
c) Is an Applicant for Protection entitled to the right to be heard and considered in virtue of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
[9] The proposed intervener in his capacity as an immigration consultant and as a citizen of Canada suggests that he has a sufficient juridical interest which clearly requires him to intervene in the present debate and the result to be rendered in consideration of the following:
a) The Parliament of Canada has implicitly authorized Immigration Consultants to intervene in matters which touch upon their duty and competence to represent a class of people whose Charter Rights are affected in accordance with the principles as contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
b) At the very least, the Intervener/Applicant can assist the Court in its understanding and deliberations surrounding the present debate under the title of "amicus curiae".
ANALYSIS
[10] According to his written representations, it seems that the proposed intervener believes that he has an interest as a citizen of Canada and as an immigrant consultant in that he could be affected by the decision that would be rendered because he is assisting persons applying for protection.
[11] My understanding is that the proposed intervener does not represent the applicant and that his interest is no different from the interest that any citizen of Canada might have in Canada's immigration policy.
[12] The Federal Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the applicant for intervener status must have an interest of more than a jurisprudential nature (The Canadian Union of Public Employees (Airline Division) v. Canadian Airlines International Ltd., [2000] F.C.J. No. 220 (QL) (F.C.A.) paragraph 8). I have no hesitation to conclude that even if the intervener feels strongly for this case and for the necessity to participate in the process, he has personally no genuine interest in the subject matter of this case and whatever decision is going to be rendered, it will have no direct impact on his rights.
[13] The proposed intervener suggests that he could be seen as an "amicus curiae" but he has failed to satisfy the Court as to the nature of his expertise and how this expertise could be of assistance to the Court.
[14] I also have to mention that most of the arguments raised by the proposed intervener are already raised by the applicant's counsel.
[15] In my view, the proposed intervener could not demonstrate how he could assist the Court in the determination of the factual or legal issues related to the proceedings.
[16] In my view the applicant in this case is well represented by counsel who already submits the same arguments as the proposed intervener.
[17] I should also mention that in Parminder Singh v. MCI, IMM-4133-03, July 15, 2003, the Honourable Mr. Justice Martineau dismissed a motion by the same proposed intervener which was similar to the present motion.
[18] Martineau J. found that there was no merit whatsoever to the proposed intervener's arguments and no basis to grant him intervener status. My opinion is the same in this case. Therefore, the proposed intervener has failed to convince the Court that there is a basis to grant intervener status in this case.
ORDER
This motion is dismissed with costs.
Pierre Blais
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4789-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: SURJIT SINGH WARAICH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: September 15, 2003
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER : The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais
DATED: September 25, 2003
APPEARANCES:
Stephen M. Byer INTERVENER
Me Marie-Nicole Moreau FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Stephen M. Byer INTERVENER
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content