IMM-1297-97
B E T W E E N:
HENRY OSAKUE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
GILES, A.S.P.:
The motion before me seeks an extension of time within which to bring a motion for reconsideration of an earlier order of mine; 2) reconsideration of my earlier order which had dismissed a motion for an extension of time within which to file the Applicant's Record in a proceeding seeking Leave and Judicial Review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board; 3) an order granting an extension of time to file the Applicant's Record.
An extension of time is not granted unless the delay is excused and there is evidence of an arguable case in the applicant's favour in the matter for which the extension is sought. Thus I cannot extend time for bringing the motion for reconsideration unless an arguable case is shown for reconsideration.
A number of rules might be applicable to enable a judicial officer to change his ruling in a matter. Rule 337(5) was raised in the notice of motion. That subrule reads as follows:
| |
5. Within 10 days of the pronouncement of judgment under paragraph (2)(a), or such further time as the Court may allow, either before or after the expiration of that time, either party may move the Court, as constituted at the time of the pronouncement, to reconsider the terms of the pronouncement, on one or both of the following grounds, and no others: |
|
| |
(a) that the pronouncement does not accord with the reasons, if any, that may have been given therefor; |
|
| |
(b) that some matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidently omitted. |
|
There is no attempt to show that the order pronounced did not accord with the reasons. Nor is there any attempt to show that any matter has been overlooked.
Rules 329 and 330 provide for rehearing where the Court has proceeded ex parte or in the absence of a party. That is not applicable here. Rule 1733 deals with subsequently discovered or subsequently arising evidence which also has not been submitted here.
I therefore conclude that there is no evidence to support an application for reconsideration and therefore time should not be granted to bring a motion for reconsideration.
The third part of the motion merely seeks an extension of time within which to file the Applicant's Record. In Espinoza v. Canada (1992), 142 N.R. 158 (Fed. C.A.) the Court of Appeal drew attention to the fact that an order extending time is always open to reconsideration even if the order was preremptory. I believe that would apply to an order refusing to extend time in certain circumstances. Just as an order limiting an extension will not be reconsidered unless there is new relevant evidence, so an order refusing an extension could not be reconsidered unless there was new relevant evidence. In this case there is no new evidence relevant to the matter of extending time which as stated above would have to deal with either an excuse for the delay or the existence of evidence to support the leave application.
ORDER
The motion before me is dismissed for the foregoing reasons.
"Peter A.K. Giles"
A.S.P.
Toronto, Ontario
August 20, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
Court No.: IMM1297-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: HENRY OSAKUE
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO UNDER THE PROVISION OF RULE 324.
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: GILES, A.S.P.
DATED: AUGUST 20, 1997
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Joseph S. Farkas
Barrister and Solicitor
3089 Bathurst Street
Suite 309
Toronto, Ontario
M6A 2A4
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: IMM-1297-97
Between:
HENRY OSAKUE
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
Email this Content