Date : 20020412
Docket: T-2152-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 418
Ottawa, Ontario, April 12, 2002
BEFORE: BLANCHARD J.
BETWEEN:
HASAN SERHAN SUZER
Plaintiff/respondent
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant/applicant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Court has before it a motion by the defendant pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules (1998), SOR/98-106, seeking:
(a) an order striking out the notice of application filed by the plaintiff on December 6, 2001;
(b) alternatively, if the Court dismisses this motion, an order authorizing the defendant to serve and file the affidavits and documentation he intends to use in support of his position within 30 days of the date of the order;
(c) any other relief the Court considers proper;
(d) the whole without costs.
[2] In his reply the plaintiff admitted that:
(a) despite the 60 days he was allowed to file his notice of application, he was three days late in filing it;
(b) the Citizenship Act does not allow a judge of the Federal Court to grant him additional time to file his application;
(c) this Court has held that the 60-day deadline is a strict one and therefore cannot be extended.
[3] However, the plaintiff maintained that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to authorize a deadline extension.
[4] I consider that the plaintiff cannot rely on inherent jurisdiction in the case at bar. The Federal Court cannot create any right or arrogate any jurisdiction it does not properly have. In the case at bar, the proceeding was initiated after the 60-day deadline, the Court hearing the case can only note that the remedy is prescribed and it has no jurisdiction to go beyond the Act imposing such a deadline.
[5] The Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, does not authorize the extension of the deadline to appeal specified in s. 14(5)(b). The Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief based on the late filing of the appeal. [See Adams v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2001] 1 F.C. 373 (F.C.A.), which supports the rules of law applied in Ovenstone v. Canada (Department of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 188 F.T.R. 157, at 158 (T.D.); Re Chen (1996) 122 F.T.R. at 77, 78-79 (T.D.); Canada (M.C.I.) v. Bakayoko (1993), 66 F.T.R. 133, at 135 (T.D.); Re Araujo (1993), 63 F.T.R. 159, at 160 (T.D.); Dunnett (1979), 102 D.L.R. (3d) 400, at 402 (F.C.T.D.); Re Conroy (1979), 99 D.L.R. (3d) 642, at 649 (F.C.T.D.); Re Kelly (1979), 96 D.L.R. (3d) 470 (F.C.T.D.)].
[6] I agree with the defendant's arguments that the Court has jurisdiction under Rule 4 of the Federal Court Rules (1998) and its inherent jurisdiction to peremptorily dismiss an application which has no chance of success. [See David Bull Laboratories v. Pharmacia, [1995] 1 F.C. 588.]
[7] In the case at bar, the plaintiff's notice of application was filed after the appeal deadline imposed by the Act had expired, and I consequently find that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the application.
[8] For these reasons, the motion will be allowed.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. the motion is allowed;
2. the notice of application filed by the plaintiff on December 6, 2001, is peremptorily struck out;
3. the whole without costs.
"Edmond P. Blanchard"
Judge
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-2152-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Hasan Serhan Suzer v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
WRITTEN MOTION HEARD WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: BLANCHARD J.
DATED: April 12, 2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
Jean-François Bertrand for the plaintiff
Jocelyne Murphy for the defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Bertrand, Deslauriers for the plaintiff
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the defendant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content