Date: 20000915
Docket: IMM-1196-99
BETWEEN:
LINHUA JIN
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
HANSEN J.
[1] At the commencement of the hearing of the application for judicial review of a decision of a visa officer refusing the applicant's application for permanent residence, the Court raised two preliminary concerns with counsel for the applicant. The concerns were with respect to the affidavit filed by the applicant on the application for judicial review.
[2] First, it was evident from the record that the applicant could not read or write English, however, the affidavit was written in English and attested to by the applicant. No certificate of translation was attached to the affidavit. Second, there were obvious irregularities in the jurat of the same affidavit. Counsel for the applicant was unable to offer any adequate explanation for the omission and the irregularities.
[3] Counsel for the respondent argued that as the matter of the absence of the certificate of translation was raised in its Record filed nine months prior to the hearing, the affidavit should be struck and the application for judicial review dismissed.
[4] The Court adjourned the proceedings to the following morning to give counsel for the respondent and applicant an opportunity to make further submissions. Later the same day, the Registry received a fax from counsel for the applicant withdrawing the application for judicial review. Under these circumstances, the Court issued a direction requesting submissions on costs.
[5] The applicant made no submissions concerning the failure to take the necessary steps to address the deficiencies prior to the hearing, instead confining his submissions to the efforts made subsequent to the adjournment to obtain instructions from his client. The respondent suggested costs of $1,500. would be reasonable under the circumstances.
[6] Pursuant to rule 22, of the Federal Court Immigration Rules, 1993 no costs shall be awarded on immigration matters unless the Court is satisfied there are special reasons for doing so.
[7] The fact that the applicant had notice of the defects nine months prior to the hearing, took no steps to remedy the deficiencies, and was unable to offer any reasonable explanation for the failure to do so, in my view constitute special reasons for an award of costs.
[8] Cost of $500.00 inclusive of disbursements are awarded to the respondent.
"Dolores M. Hansen"
J.F.C.C.
Email this Content