Date: 19991103
Docket: IMM-4921-99
BETWEEN:
ALAM, MANIRUL
Moving party
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS, J.:
[1] This is a motion to obtain an order from the Court for an additional thirty-day extension from the date of the order to file an application for judicial review of the decision dated March 29, 1999, by Neil Alexander, Second Secretary in the visa section of the Canadian High Commission in Singapore.
[2] According to the documents filed with the Court, Mr. Alexander"s decision is dated March 29, 1999.
[3] It appears that, for unknown reasons, the visa officer"s decision which was mailed on March 29, 1999, only reached the moving party on August 9, 1999.
[4] However, as noted by counsel for the respondent, since a copy of this decision was successfully communicated to moving party on August 9, 1999, the moving party had until September 8, 1999, to file an application for judicial review.
[5] It was only on October 6, 1999, one month after the time prescribed by law expired, that a motion for an extension of time asking the Court for additional time to file an application for judicial review was served on the respondent.
[6] The only document supporting this motion is an affidavit signed by Christine Vinet, counsel for the moving party at the time.
[7] According to Ms. Vinet"s affidavit, the only explanation given to justify the failure to file the application for judicial review within the prescribed time, specifically between August 9, 1999, and September 8, 1999, is that counsel for the moving party at the time had not received from the moving party the funds necessary to cover her counsel fees and the costs associated with filing the proceeding.
[8] According to Ms. Vinet"s affidavit, she was retained to act and challenge the visa officer"s decision before the Federal Court of Canada on August 17, 1999.
[9] It appears that the arrangements between the moving party and Ms. Vinet to ensure that her counsel fees would be paid were settled on September 9, 1999.
[10] However, it was only 27 days after that date, on October 6, 1999, that this motion was served on the respondent and filed in the Court by a lawyer other than Ms. Vinet.
[11] A lawyer"s actions or failure to act cannot alone be considered reasonable grounds to justify a delay in filing an application for judicial review, particularly when the application is likely to be filed several months after the date of the impugned decision.
[12] Counsel for the respondent properly pointed out that to begin with, all the moving party had to file a notice of application, as provided in Form 301 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998. This does not require much work and, at that time, would have ensured that the moving party"s interests were adequately protected within the prescribed time.
[13] However, not only was no application filed within the prescribed time, but it took almost another month for a motion for an extension of time to be filed in the record with the Court.
[14] Reference must be made to either Christine Vinet"s affidavit or the written submissions of the moving party"s new lawyer as the moving party did not file an affidavit.
[15] Accordingly, it appears that the delay in transferring money to Ms. Vinet was due to the lack of convertibility of taka (the currency of Bangladesh).
[16] Although counsel for the moving party explained at length that the application for judicial review was fully justified and based on serious grounds, the Court must note the lack of reasonable grounds to justify the delay in filing an application for judicial review.
[17] The decision was handed down on March 29, 1999, and even if the Court accepted, despite the lack of an affidavit to this effect from him, that the moving party only received the decision on August 9, 1999, the fact remains that almost two months passed before the moving party"s present counsel filed this motion.
[18] Ms. Vinet"s affidavit clearly indicates that as of August 17, 1999, she was retained to file an application for judicial review, which she did not file within the prescribed time.
[19] The Court can only conclude that there are no reasonable grounds to support the motion for extension of time.
[20] For these reasons the motion for extension of time is dismissed.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 3, 1999
Certified true translation
Monica F. Chamberlain
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-4921-99
| STYLE OF CAUSE: ALAM, MANIRUL v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
MOTION CONSIDERED WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: BLAIS J.
DATED: NOVEMBER 3, 1999
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Albert Bellemare FOR THE MOVING PARTY
Odette Bouchard FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Albert Bellemare FOR THE MOVING PARTY
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Email this Content