Date: 20060817
Docket: IMM-2662-06
Citation: 2006 FC 995
Vancouver, British
Columbia, August 17, 2006
PRESENT: Roger R. Lafrenière, Esquire
Prothonotary
BETWEEN:
JASPAL SINGH PADDA
and GURPREET SINGH PADDA
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
By motion dated August 9, 2006 the
Applicants seek an extension of time for the filing of the Applicants’ Record
to August 25, 2006.
[2]
This
is the Applicants’ second motion for an extension of time within which to
perfect the Applicants’ Record in support of their application for leave and
for judicial review. The Respondent does not oppose an extension of time,
albeit for a shorter period than that requested by the Applicants. Taking into
account that the Applicants have provided a reasonable explanation for the
delay, that they moved promptly for an extension of time and appear to have
maintained a continued intention to proceed with the application for leave, I
consider it in the interests of justice to grant the motion as requested.
[3]
There
remains, however, a procedural issue that needs to be addressed. Rather than
bringing their motion in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts
Rules (FCR), as is the norm in immigration leave applications, the
Applicants elected to proceed orally, making their motion returnable at the
General Sittings in Vancouver. Such practice should,
in my view, be discouraged.
[4]
Although
I am satisfied that the Applicants had nothing to gain by making their motion
returnable at the General Sittings, rather than proceeding in writing, one
cannot ignore that delays in processing claims for refugee protection generally
work to the advantage of persons who are not genuine refugees. In order to minimize
abuses, Parliament made changes to the refugee determination process to
increase its effectiveness and integrity. The same applies to leave
applications in this Court.
[5]
The Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) has streamlined the judicial review
process and increased its effectiveness and the consistency of its
application. Sections 72 to 75 of the IRPA and the Federal Courts
Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, which govern judicial review in
immigration matters, impose strict deadlines for taking the necessary steps to
obtain leave and provide that applications for leave be made, and ultimately
disposed of, in writing.
[6]
To
allow an applicant to obtain an oral hearing for an interlocutory motion in a
leave application that is intended to be conducted entirely in writing appears
antithetical to the statutory and regulatory objectives of efficiency and
expediency. It could easily be abused by an unscrupulous applicant who could
obtain an extended stay of removal pending determination of the application for
leave by making his or her motion for extension of time returnable in the
distant future.
[7]
In
the circumstances, the Registry should, as a rule, seek directions from the
Court with respect to any motion in an immigration leave application that is
not brought in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the FCR.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1. The
Applicants are granted a further extension of time until August 25, 2006 to
serve and file the Applicants’ Record.
2. The
time for taking subsequent steps in the proceeding is extended to run from the
date of service of the Applicants’ Record on the Respondent.
“Roger
R. Lafrenière”
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2662-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: Jaspal
Singh Padda et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF
HEARING: Vancouver,
British Columbia
DATE OF
HEARING: August
14, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER: LAFRENIÈRE P.
DATED: August
17, 2006
APPEARANCES:
|
Martin Bauer
|
FOR THE APPLICANTS
|
|
Scott Nesbitt
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
Bauer &
Company
Barristers
& Solicitors
Vancouver,
British Columbia
|
FOR THE APPLICANTS
|
|
John H. Sims,
Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Vancouver,
British Columbia
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content