Docket: T-2557-14
Citation:
2015 FC 1039
Ottawa, Ontario, September 1st, 2015
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Gagné
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
ALI SBEITI
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA (THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE)
AND PASSPORT CANADA
|
|
Respondents
|
ORDER AND REASONS
[1]
The applicant has brought an application for
judicial review of Passport Canada’s decision to invalidate his passport. He is
asking this Court to set aside the decision and to send the matter back to
Passport Canada for a new determination. As a new passport has since been
issued in his favour, the respondents have filed a written motion for an order
striking out the notice of application in its entirety, pursuant to Rule 4 of
the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [Rules], on the basis that it
became moot.
[2]
The applicant contends that there is still a
live issue between the parties and that if the Court does not invalidate the
decision, he might be faced with a similar problem in the future: the information
that led to the withdrawal of his Canadian passport came from the Canadian
Security Intelligence Service [CSIS], which allegedly constitutes a
breach of his privacy right as guaranteed by section 8 of the Charter.
He adds that one of the practical effects of a judgment invalidating the
decision would be to correct or exclude certain information from his file at
Passport Canada.
[3]
Respectfully, I am of the view that the issuance
of a passport, which covers the same validity period as for the previous passport,
provides the applicant with the substantive relief sought in his application
for judicial review and renders the matter moot.
[4]
First, any future decision of the respondents,
if challenged before this Court, would have to be reviewed in light of the
material that was before the decision maker. A judgment from the Court in the
present matter would not necessarily be binding on future decisions by the
respondents.
[5]
Second, this Court does not have jurisdiction at
first instance to grant the new relief sought by the applicant – let alone the
fact that the applicant is changing the nature of his application. With respect
to the transmission of information by CSIS, the applicant can file a complaint
with the Security Intelligence Review Committee, pursuant to paragraph
38(1)(c) of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, RSC,
1985, c C-23. As to the correction of the information contained in his file
with Passport Canada, the applicant has to follow the steps provided for in the
Privacy Act, RSC, 1985, c P-21 and request the correction of the
information from Passport Canada. Should he be unsatisfied with the result of
his request, he could file a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner of
Canada.
[6]
Any judgment that could be rendered by this
Court on the merits of the applicant’s application for judicial review would
have little bearing outside its specific set of facts. “It is preferable to wait and determine the point in a
genuine adversarial context unless the circumstances suggest that the dispute
will have always disappeared before it is ultimately resolved” (Borowski
v Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, at para 36).
[7]
Finally, the respondents have rightfully
requested that the style of cause be amended to name only the Attorney General
of Canada as respondent, as per Rule 303(2) of the Rules.
[8]
For these reasons, the respondents’ motion will
be granted, the applicant’s application for judicial review will be struck out
and the style of cause will be so amended. Considering the special
circumstances of this case, each party will bear its own costs on this motion
and on the application for judicial review.
Email this Content