Date: 20050614
Docket: IMM-9428-04
Citation: 2005 FC 818
BETWEEN:
Athanasios THEODOROPOULOS
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD J.:
[1] The present application for judicial review pursuant to subsection 72(1)of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (the Act) is with regard to "the decision" of René D'Aoust, the Manager of Investigations and Removals Unit, Canada Border Service Agency (CBSA), contained in a letter dated October 27, 2004, whereby it was reiterated that the applicant's security deposit of $5000.00 paid to the Receiver General for Canada on May 29, 2003, was not to be reimbursed.
[2] Athanasios Theodoropoulos (the applicant) is a citizen of Greece and entered Canada on May 24, 2003. After being questioned by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) regarding his stay in Canada, a report was issued against the applicant, an admissibility hearing was ordered and he was put in detention.
[3] The applicant was ordered released on May 27, 2003, under several conditions, including the payment of a $5000.00 security deposit. The applicant paid the security deposit on May 29, 2003, and was released shortly thereafter.
[4] The applicant left Canada in June 2003 and entered the United States of America.
[5] On October 7, 2003, one day before the applicant's scheduled inquiry, his counsel informed CIC and the Immigration and Refugee Board (the Board) via facsimile that the applicant had left Canada.
[6] On October 9, 2003, and January 14, 2004, the applicant's counsel requested the security deposit to be refunded. On January 19, 2004, Mr. Robert Langlais, at the time Director, Hearings and Detention, CBSA, denied the applicant a refund, stating that he had failed to respect the conditions imposed. The relevant part of his letter reads as follows:
We have received the facsimile requesting a reimbursement of the five thousand dollar Security Deposit that you posted May 29, 2003 on behalf of your client.
Unfortunately, we are unable to refund you the money deposited because we believe that your client has failed to respect the conditions imposed.
[7] On March 4, 2004, and on October 5, 2004, the applicant's counsel again sent letters requesting a refund of the security deposit.
[8] On October 27, 2004, René D'Aoust, the Manager of Investigations and Removals Unit, CBSA, sent a letter to the applicant referring to the decision made on January 19, 2004 by Mr. Langlais.
* * * * * * * * * *
[9] An application for leave and for judicial review must be served and filed within 15 days after the day on which the applicant is notified of or otherwise becomes aware of the matter (paragraph 72(2)(b) of the Act).
[10] In the present application, the applicant is contesting "the decision" of October 27, 2004. However, no decision was actually made in this letter. It simply reiterates what was determined in the letter of January 19, 2004 (Exhibit F to the affidavit of Shareen Mehta) which was clearly a decision based on subsection 49(4) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227. This regulation reads:
(4) A sum of money deposited is forfeited, or a guarantee posted becomes enforceable, on the failure of the person or any member of the group of persons in respect of whom the deposit or guarantee was required to comply with a condition imposed.
(4) En cas de non-respect, par une personne ou un groupe de personnes visé par la garantie, d'une condition imposée à son égard, la somme d'argent donnée en garantie est confisquée ou la garantie d'exécution devient exécutoire.
[11] If the applicant was unhappy with the sufficiency of the reasons supporting that decision, as he now argues, he should have then sought more detailed reasons, which he did not do. Rather, the applicant simply chose to reargue his case with CIC, but to no avail. As a result, the application should have been filed 15 days after the letter of January 19, 2004, and not that of October 27, 2004.
[12] Since the application is untimely filed, and the applicant did not request an extension of time, the application must fail.
[13] Consequently, the application for judicial review is dismissed.
[14] Given the above reasons, the questions proposed for certification are not determinative of the matter and there will be no certification.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
June 14, 2005
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-9428-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: Athanasios THEODOROPOULOS v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: May 11, 2005
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: PINARD J.
DATED: June 14, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Georgia Pappis FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Ian Demers FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Waïce Ferdoussi FOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content