Date: 20051109
Court File Number: T-2256-04
Citation: 2005 FC 1530
BETWEEN:
ALINA KING (AMOKRANE)
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Court File Number: T-2260-04
BETWEEN:
ALINA KING (AMOKRANE)
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
GIBSON J.
[1] The Applicant returned to post-secondary education. In doing so, she attests that she left herself without a source of income. To support herself, she applied for financial assistance under the Ontario Student Assistance Program funded by the federal and provincial governments and administered by National Student Loans Service Centre, Public Institutions Division, operating under Human Resources Development Canada, and by a designated educational institution, in this case Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario.
[2] On the 28th of February, 2003, the Applicant received a "Certificate of Eligibility Part-Time Students Loans". This was the first of six (6) such Certificates that the Applicant received up to the 27th of January, 2005.
[3] The Applicant applied for interest-free status in respect of her first and subsequent student loans, in each case to cover the related study period.
[4] By letter dated the 1st of December, 2004, the National Student Loans Service Centre at Mississauga, Ontario, wrote to the Applicant to advise her that there was "...an outstanding interest charge in the amount of $152.61 for your Part-time Canada Student Loan". The Applicant was advised that, because of the alleged outstanding interest charge, she was no longer eligible for interest free status for her then current study period.
[5] In a further letter dated the 16th of December, 2004, in this case from the Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Learning Branch, at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, the Applicant was advised:
I understand that you feel that the accrued interest on your part-time loan should not be an issue because you provided an Interest Relief application and subsequently entered into full-time studies at Carleton University. The situation seems to be at an impasse. Your Certificate of Eligibility cannot be negotiated unless the accrued interest on your part-time Canada Student loan is paid, and from the comments in your letter it appears that you do not wish to pay that interest. National Student Loans Service Centre...officials have indicated that they have returned your loan documents to you.
[6] The Applicant's application for judicial review on Court File No. T-2256-04 relates to the "decision" reflected in the letter dated the 16th of December, 2004, the effect of which, the Applicant alleges, was to deny her access to the Canada-Ontario Integrated Student Loans Program which was then her only source of income. In respect of that "decision", the Applicant seeks the following relief:
- an order declaring that the "decision" of the 16th of December, 2004, demanding the payment of interest by the Applicant on a student loan payable to her while she was a full-time student, was "contrary to law" within the meaning of s. 18.1(4)(f) of the Federal Courts Act, because it is contrary to ss. 7 and 8 of the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act;
- the costs of her application for judicial review; and
- such further and other relief as to this Court may seem just.
[7] The Applicant's application for judicial review on Court File No. T-2260-04 seeks review of the "decision" reflected in the letter of the 1st of December, 2004, referred to above which, the Applicant alleges, has the same effect on her situation, that is to say, it amounts to a denial of access to the only source of income available to her while she is enrolled as a full-time student.
[8] In the materials before the Court, and in representations at hearing of these applications for judicial review, the Applicant indicated that, as a result of the "decisions" under review, and in order to continue her studies to which she was deeply committed, she was forced to turn to high-interest credit card advances to maintain herself and risked losing her status as a full-time student at Carleton University since she fell into arrears on her student fees.
[9] Apparently discussions and negotiations, involving counsel for the Respondent, were undertaken between the Applicant and others. The discussions and negotiations bore fruit. In an affidavit sworn the 10th of May, 2005, the Director General of the Canada Student Loans program at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada attested that interest relief in respect of the Applicant's Student Loans had been provided for five (5) periods commencing on the 1st of April, 2003, and running continuously to the 30th of September, 2005, and that a further Canada Student Loan and a further Ontario Student Loan had been dispersed to the Applicant.
[10] In the result, at the opening of the joint hearing of these applications for judicial review, counsel for the Respondent urged that both applications were moot. The Applicant, representing herself, did not dispute that the applications were moot but urged that they should nonetheless be heard because many post-secondary students throughout Canada who rely on student loans, like the Applicant, could be subjected to treatment equivalent to that experienced by the Applicant and therefore, the judicial reviews were of broad significance and could be critical to many others, as the situation the Applicant found herself to be in, was to her. The particular significance to the Applicant of the situation that she found herself in was put before the Court.
[11] Against the test for mootness provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), I was satisfied at hearing that these applications for judicial review are in fact moot and that no significant purpose would be served by the Court determining to exercise its discretion to nonetheless hear the applications. I advised the Applicant at hearing that I was of the view that her legitimate concerns flowing from her experience in respect of her student loans would better be served by putting these brief reasons on record. The Applicant accepted the Court's judgment in that regard and thus, these brief reasons have followed.
[12] At the close of hearing, the Court expressed concern that the Applicant had incurred out-of-pocket expenses, at a time when she could ill afford them, in filing and pursuing these applications for judicial review which may well have contributed to an outcome in respect of her student loans that was to her satisfaction. Counsel for the Respondent acknowledged that the Applicant had incurred out-of-pocket expenses and that, further, she undoubtedly incurred interest costs and perhaps other expenses that she could ill afford. Counsel indicated that the Respondent was deeply concerned about this reality and indicated that discussions would be undertaken with the Applicant to attempt to achieve an agreement regarding appropriate reimbursement. In the result, the Court will not further deal with the issue of costs in favour of the Applicant at this time. That being said, the Court encourages the discussions that are contemplated and invites the Applicant to return to the Court, and more particularly, to this Judge, in the event a satisfactory settlement is not arrived at.
[13] The Applicant expressed concern that documents filed with the Court disclosed personal information which she would prefer not fall into the public domain. Counsel for the Respondent expressed sympathy for the Applicant's situation in this regard. It was agreed that the Applicant and counsel for the Respondent would review the material before the Court, attempt to reach agreement on appropriate redactions, and would advise the Court of the results. On advice from the Applicant and counsel for the Respondent, the Court will be pleased to consider directing appropriate redactions from the material before it.
[14] Orders will go dismissing these applications for judicial review as moot.
"Frederick E. Gibson"
J.F.C.
Ottawa, Ontario.
November 9, 2005.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2256-04 and T-2260-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: ALINA KING (AMOKRANE)
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario.
DATE OF HEARING: November 7, 2005
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: GIBSON J.
DATED: November 9, 2005
APPEARANCES:
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Email this Content