Moghrabi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002 FCT 417

Date: 20020412

Docket: T-2137-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 417

Ottawa, Ontario, April 12, 2002

BEFORE: BLANCHARD J.

BETWEEN:

KAMAL MOGHRABI

Plaintiff

- and -

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Defendant

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 the notice of application filed by the plaintiff on December 4, 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)        such other relief as the Court may see fit to order;

(d)        the whole without costs.

[2]        The notice of application was filed on December 4, 2002, one day after the 60-day deadline specified in s. 14(5)(b) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29.

[3]        The Citizenship Act does not allow an extension of the deadline for appealing mentioned in s. 14(5)(b). The Court does not have jurisdiction to grant any relief, in view of 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. 77, at 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.).]

[4]        I concur with the defendant's arguments that the Court has jurisdiction under Rule 4 of the Federal Court Rules (1998), and its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss peremptorily an application which has no chance of success.    [See David Bull Laboratories v. Pharmacia, [1995] 1 F.C. 588.]

[5]        In the case at bar, the plaintiff's notice of application was filed after the appeal deadline specified in the Act, and consequently I find that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the application.

[6]        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 4, 2001, is peremptorily struck out;

3.         The whole without costs.

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-2137-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                     Kamal Moghrabi v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

WRITTEN MOTION DECIDED WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY:         Blanchard J.

DATED:                                                                           April 12, 2002

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

François Joyal                                                                  for the defendant

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Barchichat & Associés                                                     for the plaintiff

Montréal, Quebec

Morris Rosenberg                                                              for the defendant

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario