Date: 19990520
Docket: IMM-1080-99
BETWEEN:
EDWARD GALVAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
NADON J.
[1] This motion for an order extending the time to file a notice of application for judicial review of a visa officer's decision dated July 27, 1997 is denied.
[2] The applicant and his mother, his sponsor, were advised at the end of August of 1997 that his application for permanent residence in Canada had been refused.
[3] The mother, as sponsor, appealed the visa officer's decision to the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The notice of appeal was filed prior to September 30, 1997, i.e. within 30 days of the date of receipt of the letter of refusal.
[4] The mother retained counsel in November 1998 when she was informed that her appeal had been set down for a hearing. She then met with counsel on February 10, 1999, i.e. 2 days prior to the hearing before the Appeal Division.
[5] On February 11, 1999 counsel advised the mother that her appeal could not succeed and as a result the appeal was withdrawn.
[6] On March 4, 1999 the applicant filed the present application for an order extending the time to file a notice of application for judicial review of the visa officer's decision dated July 27, 1997.
[7] Although her appeal was filed in September 1997 the mother only retained counsel in November 1998 when she was informed that her appeal would be heard in February 1999. She then met counsel 2 days before the hearing and was advised on the following day that her appeal would not succeed and consequently she withdrew the appeal.
[8] I can see no valid reason why the mother did not retain counsel prior to November 1998, and more importantly, why she did not seek advice prior to February 1999 regarding the chances of success of her appeal. Had she sought advice in a timely manner, she would have known in 1997 that her appeal was worthless.
[9] It cannot be forgotten that the present motion was filed 19 months after the decision which the applicant is attacking was rendered. In the circumstances, I see no possible justification for this delay. I have obviously carefully read and considered the mother's affidavit filed in support of this motion. Unfortunately for the applicant it does not satisfy me that the delay to file an application for judicial review or a motion to extend time can be excused.
[10] Consequently, the motion is denied. In view of this conclusion, I need not address the other issue raised by the respondent as to whether the applicant requires leave of this Court, pursuant to section 82.1(1) of the Immigration Act, to commence an application for judicial review of the July 27, 1997 decision.
"Marc Nadon"
Judge
TORONTO, ONTARIO
May 20, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-1090-99
| STYLE OF CAUSE: EDWARD GALVAN |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
AND IMMIGRATION
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369.
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: NADON J.
DATED: TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1999
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Ferguson Barnwell
Barristers & Solicitors
515 Consumers Road, Ste. 310
Toronto, Ontario
M2J 4A2
For the Applicant
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19990520
Docket: IMM-1080-99
Between:
EDWARD GALVAN
Applicant
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Email this Content