|
Federal Court
|
|
Cour fédérale
|
Date: 20090608
Docket: IMM-2700-08
Citation: 2009 FC 591
Ottawa, Ontario,
June 8, 2009
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
SAQIB HAMEED &
ADEELA
BASHIR
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS AND ORDER
[1]
Having issued a
judgment allowing Mr. Hameed’s application for judicial review on May 21, 2009,
I invited counsel to make submissions on the issues of certification of a
question of general importance and costs.
I.
Potential
Questions:
[2]
Counsel for Mr. Hameed
submits that no questions of general importance arise. Counsel for the Minister
proposes the following three questions:
1.
Does the Federal
Court have the jurisdiction under s. 18.1(3)(b) of the Federal Courts
Act to direct the Minister to grant an individual a specified number of
points under the Skilled Worker category of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations?
2.
Does the visa
officer have the authority under s. 78 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations to determine what constitutes “full-time” or
“full-time equivalent” enrolment in a program of study?
3.
Does the Federal
Court have the authority to substitute its own assessment of foreign
documentation for that of the visa officer?
[3]
In respect of
Question 1, counsel’s written submissions make clear that the Court does have
the jurisdiction to issue directions under s. 18.1(3)(b). However, she
questions whether the Court ought to have done so in this case. In my view, that
does not amount to a question of general importance. I would also point out
that the Court clearly has the authority under s. 18.1(3)(a) to make a
decision that the officer ought to have made. In Mr. Hameed’s case, the Court
simply wished to ensure that the assessment of his educational credentials did
not give rise to yet a third application for judicial review.
[4]
In respect of
Question 2, it is obvious that visa officers have the authority to make decisions
under s. 78 of the Regulations. However, those decisions are amenable to
judicial review. This is not a question of general importance.
[5]
In respect of
Question 3, again it is obvious that the Court, on judicial review, must
consider the reasonableness of an officer’s assessment of the evidence. This is
not a question of general importance.
II.
Costs:
[6]
Counsel for the
Minister submits that no special reasons justify an award of costs in this
case. Counsel for Mr. Hameed argues that special reasons arise from the fact
that Mr. Hameed had to come to the court twice on essentially the same
question.
[7]
In my reasons for judgment,
I made clear that the issues arising in the two judicial reviews were somewhat
different. In my view, therefore, the circumstances do not warrant an award of
costs. However, the circumstances did merit the particular order that I issued
directing the assessment of Mr. Hameed’s educational credentials. In light of
that order, there will be no order as to costs.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1.
No question of general importance is stated.
2.
There is no order as to costs.
“James W. O’Reilly”
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2700-08
STYLE OF CAUSE: SAQIB
HAMEED AND ADEELA BASHIR v. MCI
PLACE OF
HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF
HEARING: January
14, 2009
SUPPLEMENTAL
REASONS
FOR ORDER: O’REILLY J.
DATED: June 8,
2009
APPEARANCES:
|
David Orman
|
FOR THE APPLICANTS
|
|
Judy Michaely
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
DAVID ORMAN
Toronto,
Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANTS
|
|
John H. Sims,
Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content