Date:20001115
Docket:A-279-99
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
MIKE TAMBWE-LUBEMBA
VERONIQUE WANYA-KATSHIYA
Appellants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Tuesday, November 14, 2000
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
on Tuesday, November 14, 2000
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT PRONOUNCED BY: DÉCARY J.A. |
Date: 20001115
Docket: A-279-99
CORAM: THE CHIEF JUSTICE
DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
MIKE TAMBWE-LUBEMBA
VERONIQUE WANYA-KATSHIYA
Appellants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Tuesday, November 14, 2000)
DÉCARY J.A.
| _. This appeal on a certified question stated by Mr. Justice McKeown (1999 F.C.J. no. 511) deals with two separates issues. |
| _. The first issue is whether the Convention Refugee Determination Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (the "Refugee Division") becomes functus at the time the written reasons are signed or at the time a written notice of the decision is sent with the written reasons to the parties pursuant to subsection 69.1 of the Immigration Act (the "Act"). In the case at hand the hearing was held before a one-member panel. |
| _. For the very reasons given by Mr. Justice McKeown, we are of the view that once written reasons are signed, the decision of the Refugee Division is "rendered" within the meaning of subsection 69.1(9). The process of notification is clearly, by the words of the statute, a different process. This is confirmed by Rule 30 of the Convention Refugee Determination Division Rules, which provides that the notice of the decision is to be signed by the registrar and served "forthwith". The decision, therefore, is to be made "as soon as possible" under the statute and once made it is to be served "forthwith" under the Rules. We note that contrary to the Immigration Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board (see subsection 69.4(1) of the Act), the Refugee Division is not a court of record. The jurisprudence dealing with courts of record is therefore not particularly helpful. |
| _. In the present case, the Board member had already signed her written reasons at the time the Refugee Division received the additional evidence from counsel for the claimant. The Board member was functus. |
| _. The second issue is whether the Board member was under a continuing obligation, after the conclusion of the hearing and before she signed her written reasons, to consider documents that were not filed at the hearing but which had come into the possession of the Refugee Division in the meantime. There is no evidence in the case at hand that the Board member ever saw the document at issue prior to signing her written reasons. Again we endorse the reasons for judgment of Mr. Justice McKeown and find that there was no such continuing obligation on the Board member. |
| _. The certified question will be answered in the negative and the appeal will be dismissed. |
"Robert Décary"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
| STYLE OF CAUSE: MIKE TAMBWE-LUBEMBA |
VERONIQUE WANYA-KATSHIYA
Appellants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2000
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
| OF THE COURT PRONOUNCED BY: DÉCARY J.A. |
Delivered at Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, November 14, 2000
APPEARANCES: Mr. Micheal Crane
Ms. Diane Dagenais
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Micheal Crane |
Barrister & Solicitor
200-166 Pearl St.
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 1L3
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Date: 20001115
Docket: A-279-99
BETWEEN:
VERONIQUE WANYA-KATSHIYA
Appellants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
THE COURT
Email this Content