Date: 20100317
Docket: IMM-2383-09
Citation: 2010 FC 305
Ottawa, Ontario, March 17,
2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Near
BETWEEN:
AMARDEEP
BOPARAI
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND
IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
The
Applicant sought judicial review of the outstanding decision on a spousal
sponsorship application filed by the Applicant on May 29, 2006, and not decided
by the Respondent for reasons not known to the Applicant at the time his
application for judicial review was filed. The Applicant sought the following
relief by way of judicial review:
An order requiring that the
respondent process the application for spousal sponsorship for landing from
outside Canada in accordance with the policy provisions set out in IP 2 and OP
24 of the Immigration Manuel (sic) and other guidelines. Any further relief
this Honourable Court may deem just and proper.
[2]
On
December 17, 2009, permanent resident visas were issued to the Applicant’s wife
and infant son.
[3]
This
application is moot. There is no longer a live issue between the parties and
the Court declines to exercise its discretion to decide the matter on the
merits (see Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342;
[1989] S.C.J. No. 14).
[4]
The
sole matter that the Applicant is now raising is the issue of costs and whether
special reasons exist for the awarding of costs against the Respondent. Given
the history of this file there is a question as to whether the Court should
consider the matter of costs as a live issue as between the parties given that
the substantive issues have all been resolved. However, I have decided that it
is appropriate to consider the matter of costs based on the facts of this case.
[5]
The
Applicant argues that the Court should find that special reasons exist pursuant
to Rule 22 of The Federal Court Immigration and Refugee Protection
Rules, (SOR/93-22). The Applicant takes the position that there was an
unreasonable delay in the processing of the Applicant’s sponsorship application
for his wife and child and invited the Court to “send a message” to the
Minister that these applications should be processed in a more timely fashion.
[6]
The
initial sponsorship application was made in May, 2006, it was approved in May
2009, and the visas were issued in December 2009. The sole reasons for the
visas not being issued earlier was the wife’s pregnancy and inability to
travel. Thus, the processing time in question from application to approval is
slightly less than three years.
[7]
The
Respondent acknowledges that the time to process the sponsorship application
was somewhat longer than the norm, but states that there is no evidence of bad
faith and that there were circumstances in this case that led to the longer
timeframe. The Respondent argues it had fully explained the reasons for the
delay to the Applicant throughout the process.
[8]
I
agree that there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Respondent or
that the Respondent acted in a way that could be described as unfair,
oppressive or improper in the conduct of this litigation, or prolonged the
proceedings as contemplated by this Court in Johnson v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1262; 275 F.T.R. 316, and Huot v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 917; 83 Imm. L.R.
(3d) 144. Further investigation of the sponsorship application was required to
consider allegations of an “immigration marriage” made against the Applicant
and lead to the delays. Accordingly, I find that there are no special reasons
to award costs against the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT
ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. this application is dismissed;
and
2. there is no order as to costs.
“ D.
G. Near ”
Email this Content