Date: 20020320
Docket: A-104-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 113
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
RANJAN COOMARASWAMY
ANUSHA RANJAN
AHALYA RANJAN
UTHAYAKUMARI RANJAN
Appellants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Tuesday, March 19, 2002.
Order delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
on Tuesday, March 19, 2002.
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE COURT: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
Date: 20020320
Docket: A-104-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 113
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
RANJAN COOMARASWAMY
ANUSHA RANJAN
AHALYA RANJAN
UTHAYAKUMARI RANJAN
Appellants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario,
on Tuesday, March 19, 2002)
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
[1] Appellant's counsel has written to the Court questioning whether I should participate in this appeal as the certified question that brings on the appeal is the same as a question I certified in another case when I was sitting in the Trial Division. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel was asked whether he was making a motion for recusal. Counsel replied that he did not wish to make such a motion, but rather asked only that the panel consider the situation.
[2] Counsel says it is not the fact that a prior decision of mine is against the Appellants' position in this appeal that gives rise to his concern. Rather he says his concern is based solely on the fact that I certified the same question in another case as was certified in this case.
[3] We have carefully considered counsel's submissions. As we read subsection 83(1) of the Immigration Act, the certifying of a question implies only that the question is one the Trial Division Judge thinks is a serious question of general importance on which the Appeal Division should pronounce. We cannot see that because a Judge thinks a question is one of general importance that merits a decision of the Appeal Division, that that creates an apprehension of bias that would warrant recusal.
[4] Although counsel did not base his submissions on the point, we would observe that Judges regularly hear cases that involve legal questions on which they have made previous pronouncements. That has never been held to be a disqualifying consideration.
[5] For these reasons, we have decided that this is not a case for recusal.
"Marshall Rothstein"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-104-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: RANJAN COOMARASWAMY
ANUSHA RANJAN
AHALYA RANJAN
UTHAYAKUMARI RANJAN
Appellants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2002
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER
OF THE COURT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
DATED: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2002
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH AT TORONTO, ONTARIO ON TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 2002.
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Max Berger
For the Appellants
Mr. David Tyndale
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: MAX BERGER & ASSOCIATES
Barrister & Solicitors
1033 Bay Street, Suite 207
Toronto, Ontario
M5S 3A5
For the Appellants
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
APPEAL DIVISION
Date: 20020320
Docket: A-104-01
BETWEEN:
RANJAN COOMARASWAMY
ANUSHA RANJAN
AHALYA RANJAN
UTHAYAKUMARI RANJAN
Appellants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE COURT
Email this Content