Kopacz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2010 FC 654

Date: 20100616

Docket: IMM-3272-10

Citation: 2010 FC 654

Toronto , Ontario , June 16, 2010

PRESENT:  The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Keefe

 

BETWEEN:

MICHAL KRZYSZTOF KOPACZ

Applicant

and

 

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

 

Respondent

 

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

 

• [1] This is a motion by the applicant for an order allowing the applicant to be represented by his friend, Ben Gondek.

 

• [2] The applicant has no status in Canada and thus, cannot work. He is unable to afford legal counsel and is not eligible for legal assistance.

 

• [3] The applicant’s friend, Mr. Gondek, is not a lawyer. He is a former director of a Polish credit union in Toronto .

 

Issue

 

• [4] Should Mr. Gondek, a non-lawyer, be allowed to represent the applicant in Federal Court?

 

Analysis and Decision

 

• [5] Rule 119 of the Federal Courts Rules allows the applicant to represent himself or to be represented by a solicitor. There is no provision for representation by another person who is not a solicitor.

 

• [6] However, the Federal Court of Appeal in Erdmann v. Canada , [2001] F.C.J. No. 834 stated at paragraphs 10 and 11:

10  I have also considered whether this is an appropriate case to grant Mr. Swift leave to represent Ms. Erdmann even though he is not a lawyer. According to Rule 119, an individual may act in person or be represented by a lawyer. There is no specific provision that permits a non-lawyer to represent a litigant who is an individual.

 

11  An argument might be made that the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to permit representation by a non-lawyer if the interests of justice so require. Assuming, without deciding, that I have the requisite jurisdiction, I would not be inclined to exercise it in this case to permit Ms. Erdmann to be represented by Mr. Swift.

 

 

• [7] The applicant wishes to have Mr. Gondek represent him because he states he does not speak English well and he does not know the law.

• [8] I would note that the applicant has submitted his own affidavit in English. Rule 80(2.1) of the Federal Courts Rules states:

 

 

• [9] As no certificate of translation (Form 80B) was filed, I would infer that the applicant gave the information for the affidavit in English.

 

• [10] The respondent also indicated at the hearing of this motion that an interpreter could be made available for the hearing.

 

• [11] I would note that the applicant also wishes to have Mr. Gondek represent him because he does not know the law. The affidavit evidence does not tell me whether Mr. Gondek knows the law.

 

• [12] As a result of the above conclusions and after considering the motion material and the remarks of the parties, I am not prepared to allow the applicant to be represented by Mr. Gondek who is a non-lawyer.

 

• [13] The applicant’s motion is therefore dismissed.

 

• [14] There shall be no order for costs.

 

 

ORDER

 

IT IS ORDERED that:

  1.  The applicant’s motion is dismissed.

  2.  There shall be no order for costs.

 

 

“John A. O’Keefe”

FEDERAL COURT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:  IMM-3272-10

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:  MICHAL KRZYSZTOF KOPACZ v.

 

  THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

  AND IMMIGRATION

 

PLACE OF HEARING:  Toronto , Ontario

 

DATE OF HEARING:  June 14, 2010

 

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER OF:  O’KEEFE J.

 

DATED:  June 16, 2010

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Michal Krzysztof Kopacz	FOR THE APPLICANT (Self-represented)
Monmi Goswami	FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

N/A	FOR THE APPLICANT (Self-represented)
Myles J. Kirvan Deputy Attorney General of Canada	FOR THE RESPONDENT