Docket: A-58-17
Citation:
2017 FCA 196
|
CORAM:
|
NADON J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
WEBB J.A.
|
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
FOREFRONT
PLACEMENT LTD.
|
|
Appellant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
|
|
Respondent
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on
September 21, 2017).
STRATAS J.A.
[1]
Forefront Placement Ltd. appeals from the order
dated February 14, 2017 of the Federal Court (per Southcott J.). On an
interlocutory basis, the Federal Court ordered, among other things, that Mr. Leahy,
a disbarred lawyer, could not represent Forefront in the application before it.
[2]
Forefront appeals this interlocutory ruling to
this Court. By interlocutory order of this Court dated May 9, 2017, Mr. Leahy
was granted leave to represent Forefront in this appeal hearing. Left for this
Court at the hearing of the appeal was whether Mr. Leahy is permitted to act as
counsel under section 11 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7.
[3]
The respondent, among other things, submits that
this appeal is barred as an interlocutory matter arising under the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27: see para. 72(2)(e).
[4]
The first step is to characterize Forefront’s
application in the Federal Court and to assess whether, in the words of section
72 of the Act, it is a “matter — a decision,
determination or order made, a measure taken or a question raised — under the
Act.” If so, then this is an interlocutory
matter arising under the Act and so an appeal is barred.
[5]
I note that the reference to “the Act” in section 72 includes a regulation: see
subsection 2(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[6]
In its application in the Federal Court,
Forefront seeks to resist or reduce the payment of a $1,000 fee under section
315.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,
SOR/2002-227. It alleges that this provision in the Regulations conflicts with
a provision in an Act, namely subsection 19(2) of the Financial
Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11 and, thus, is invalid.
[7]
In our view, this falls within the bar in
section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It is a matter
or question raised under the Act.
[8]
Forefront urges that the Financial
Administration Act is the matter before us. We disagree. Subsection 19(2)
of the Financial Administration Act is only a ground invoked in a matter
or question that, in substance, concerns the avoidance or reduction of the
obligation to pay the fee under section 315.2 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Regulations.
[9]
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this
Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Therefore, we will dismiss
the appeal with costs.
"David Stratas"
Email this Content