Date:
20130220
Docket:
IMM-10974-12
Citation:
2013 FC 178
Ottawa, Ontario,
February 20, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes
BETWEEN:
|
|
CANRONG LI
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS
FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
By
Reasons for Order and Order issued on January 30, 2013, I dismissed the
Applicant’s motion for an Order compelling the Respondent to produce its
computer file notes as “reasons” for a supposed decision not to finalize the
Applicant’s visa application. In support of that motion, counsel for the
Applicant, Pantea Jafari, filed an affidavit deposed by Timothy E. Leahy – a
member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. Mr. Leahy’s affidavit stated
that a letter sent by the Second Secretary of the Canadian Embassy in Guatemala asserting that “no decision has yet been made on the Applicant’s application” was
“false”. Mr. Leahy went on to describe this representation as a
“deceit”. Ms. Jafari’s Brief to the Court also stated that in the
Applicant’s previous mandamus application “Justice Hughes imposed the
respondent’s terms on [the applicant]”.
[2]
In
my Reasons for Order and Order dated January 30, 2013 I allowed counsel for the
parties to address the issue of costs and, in particular, whether counsel for the
Applicant should be ordered to pay costs personally because of the inflammatory
and disrespectful language that had been employed in support of the motion. I
also noted that Justice Hughes had earlier commented on counsel’s similar
conduct in his Order of December 18, 2012 where he said that Mr. Leahy’s
affidavit included “intemperate and unprofessional comments about the Court and
government officials”. A review of that affidavit discloses that Mr. Leahy
had repeatedly stated, without any supporting evidence, that Canadian officials
had lied and that several judges of this Court had acted improperly.
[3]
Ms. Jafari’s
response to my Reasons for Order and Order was that she had no control over the
content of Mr. Leahy’s affidavit and that “asking a deponent to change its
content would be to tamper with evidence”. This position is, of course, devoid
of merit. Counsel of record is not a mere cipher of a client or of some other
counsel working on a file. There was a professional obligation on the part of
Ms. Jafari to carefully review Mr. Leahy’s affidavit - particularly
in light of Justice Hughes’ concerns - and to insist on the removal of all
objectionable content. Ms. Jafari also had a professional obligation to
discuss this issue carefully with her client and to seek the client’s
instructions with respect to the propriety of Mr. Leahy’s affidavit.
If those instructions were unsatisfactory, Ms. Jafari should have
withdrawn from the file.
[4]
Ms. Jafari
was also personally responsible for the disrespectful comment that Justice
Hughes had “imposed the Respondent’s terms on” her client. Similar
disrespectful comments are contained in the earlier motion record.
[5]
Ms. Jafari
is correct that her client is not responsible for the contents of this record;
but she is responsible.
[6]
Costs
of this motion in the amount $500.00 payable forthwith to the Respondent by
Ms. Jafari personally are ordered.
ORDER
THIS
COURT ORDERS that costs of $500.00 are payable forthwith
to the Respondent personally by the Applicant’s counsel, Pantea Jafari.
"R.L.
Barnes"
Email this Content