Date: 20061117
Docket: IMM-2005-06
Citation: 2006 FC 1396
Montreal, Quebec, November 17, 2006
PRESENT: Richard
Morneau, Esq., Prothonotary
BETWEEN:
CARLOS MARIO
GONZALEZ-RUBIO SUESCAN
applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
respondent
Motion in writing on behalf of Canadian
Council for Refugees for leave to intervene.
(Rules 109 and
369 of the Federal Courts Rules)
REASONS
FOR ORDER AND ORDER
MORNEAU P.
[1]
UPON
CONSIDERING the motion records material filed by the proposed intervener and by
the Respondent who opposes the motion at bar;
[2]
CONSIDERING
that the substantive application herein arises in the context of an application
for leave and judicial review filed on April 13, 2006, against a decision by an
immigration officer dated March 31, 2006, which found that the Applicant’s
application for refugee status in Canada was ineligible to be considered by the
Refugee Protection Division, pursuant to paragraph 101(1)(c) of the Immigration
and Refugee Protection Act (hereinafter “IRPA”) on the basis that the
Applicant had already made a claim for refugee protection in Canada that was
found ineligible on February 21, 2006;
[3]
CONSIDERING
that leave was granted in the within application on September 15, 2006, yet the
proposed intervener did not formally ask for leave to intervene until October
30, 2006 (after the parties had completed submitting their evidence to the
Court);
[4]
CONSIDERING
that the hearing on the merits of the application is scheduled to take place
before this Court on December 6, 2006;
[5]
CONSIDERING
rule 109 and the relevant criteria developed by the jurisprudence for
determining intervener status (- see Canadian Union of Public
Employees (Airline Division) v. Canadian Airlines International Ltd., 2001
FCA 233, [2002] F.C.J. No. 220, par. 8 and foll. (QL); AB Hassle v. Apotex
Inc., (2006) 265 D.L.R. (4th) 363 (C.A.); Eli Lilly Canada
Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health), 2001 FCA
108, (2001) 289 N.R. 377;
-
see also Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band
(1993), 65
F.T.R.
292, par. 15 (F.C.T.D.) on the timely manner of any motion to intervene);
[6]
CONSIDERING
that this Court has come to the conclusion that the proposed intervener does
not meet the core applicable criteria for the granting of intervener status in
that:
a) The proposed
intervener is not directly affected by the case herein and has only a general
interest in the development of the case law which interest is not in itself
grounds for allowing a person or organisation to intervene: see Canadian
Union of Public Employees (Airline Division) v. Canadian Airlines International
Ltd., supra, par.11; Anderson v. Canadian Customs and Revenue
Agency, 2003 FCA 352 [2003] F.C.J. 1388, par. 6 (QL);
b) The Applicant
is best placed to address the constitutionality of paragraph 101(1)(c) of IRPA
since the Applicant has already mounted a challenge to the constitutional
validity of said paragraph and has, in this regard, presented evidence and
legal submissions;
c) If any
relevant evidence can be presented of alleged violations of Charter rights
flowing from the application of the relevant legislation in this case, such
evidence can only presented by the Applicant;
d) The Applicant
was also best placed to respond to the evidence filed by the Respondent on
October 23, 2006, which indicates that the Applicant is entitled to present an
application for pre-removal risk assessment in Canada, under s. 112 of IRPA;
e) That the
submissions the proposed intervener wishes to make are either duplicative of
the Applicant’s submissions or would add very little to the debate;
f)
That
if granted the intervention sought will likely lead to further delay and will
prevent the holding of the merit hearing on December 6, 2006. Therefore, the
motion at bar is untimely.
ORDER
CONSEQUENTLY, FOR
THE ABOVE REASONS, this motion for intervention of the Canadian Council for
Refugees is denied, the whole with costs.
“Richard
Morneau”
Email this Content