IMM-2789-96
B E T W E E N:
MEHRANGIZ DAVOODIAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
| REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER |
GILES, A.S.P.:
The applicant has moved for reconsideration of my order dismissing her application for an extension of time within which to file her Record. Her previous application for an extension was dismissed because the sole excuse she put forward for the delay in filing her Record, was that she was waiting for Legal Aid a matter which had been determined by this court not to excuse a delay. Also, at that time I noticed that she did not indicate that she had an arguable case for leave, which would have been required had the delay been excused.
Reconsideration is provided by Rule 337(5). Reversal or variation of an order is provided for by Rule 1733. Rule 337(5) reads:
| |
(5) Within 10 days of the pronouncement of judgment under paragraph (2)(a), or such further time as the Court may allow, either before or after the expiration of that time, either party may move the Court, as constituted at the time of the pronouncement, to reconsider the terms of the pronouncement, on one or both of the following grounds, and no others: |
|
| |
(a) that the pronouncement does not accord with the reasons, if any, that may have been given therefor; |
|
| |
(b) that some matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted. |
|
My order accords with the short endorsement contained in the order. No separate reasons were given. The only matter raised was that of awaiting Legal Aid, which was dealt with in my endorsement. I also pointed out the absence of any representations as to the existence of an arguable case. Nothing appears in the new motion which indicates that I overlooked any matter raised on the earlier motion. Reconsideration under Rule 337(5) is therefore not available.
I also considered the possible applicability of Rule 1733, which reads:
| |
Rule 1733. A party entitled to maintain an action for the reversal or variation of a judgment or order upon the ground of matter arising subsequent to the making thereof or subsequently discovered, or to impeach a judgment or order on the ground of fraud, may make an application in the action or other proceeding in which such judgment or order was delivered or made for the relief claimed. |
|
In the case of Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) v. Chung, [1993] 2 F.C. 42. The Federal Court of Appeal indicated that for Rule 1733 to be applicable some matter must have been discovered subsequently, that is after representations were made with respect to the impugned decision. There is no suggestion of any newly discovered material in this case. Therefore Rule 1733 is also unavailable to the applicant. The motion for reconsideration must therefore be dismissed.
O R D E R
The motion for reconsideration is dismissed.
"Peter A.K. Giles"
A.S.P.
Toronto, Ontario
January 17, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-2789-96
STYLE OF CAUSE: MEHRANGIZ DAVOODIAN
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO UNDER THE PROVISION OF RULE 324.
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: GILES, A.S.P.
DATED: JANUARY 17, 1997
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mehrangiz Davoodian
3025 Credit Woodlands Road
Apartment 353
Mississauga, Ontario
L5C 2V3
Solicitor for the Applicant
Urszula Kaczmarczyk
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No. IMM-2789-96
Between:
MEHRANGIZ DAVOODIAN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER & ORDER
Email this Content