Date: 20101217
Docket: A-418-05
Citation: 2010 FCA
352
Present: NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
KATIA MONTANO COVARRUBIAS,
ANGEL GABRIEL OLVERA RAMIREZ,
BEERI NOE OLVERA MONTANO, ASAEL OLVERA
MONTANO
AND ELIEZER IVAN OLVERA MONTANO
Appellants
and
THE
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Dealt with in writing without appearance
of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario,
on December 17, 2010.
REASONS
FOR ORDER BY: NADON
J.A.
Date: 2010117
Docket: A-418-05
Citation: 2010 FCA 352
Present: NADON
J.A.
BETWEEN:
KATIA MONTANO COVARRUBIAS, ANGEL GABRIEL
OLVERA RAMIREZ,
BEERI NOE OLVERA MONTANO, ASAEL OLVERA
MONTANO
AND ELIEZER IVAN OLVERA MONTANO
Appellants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
NADON J.A.
[1]
The applicants
seek an Order amending the Reasons for Judgment of this Court in Covarrubias
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FCA 365, [2007] 3
F.C. 169 (“Covarrubias”, so that the references to 2006 FC 444, now
style A.B. v. Canada (The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (AB)
reflect the Order of Barnes J. of the Federal Court, dated February 4, 2010 to
anonymize the style of cause.
[2]
More
particularly, the applicants seek an Order which amends:
1.
The
quotation from A.B. appearing at paragraph 29 of the Reasons in Covarrubias,
supra;
2.
The
references to the “pre-anonymization” style of cause cited in the list of cases
applied;
3.
Paragraphs
29 and 35 of the Reasons.
[3]
The
applicants were not a party to the proceedings which led to this Court’s
decision in Covarrubias. However, they were parties in A.B.
referred to at paragraphs 29 and 35 of our Reasons in Covarrubias, supra.
In making the motion which is now before me, the applicants say that this Court
should amend its Reasons so as to reflect the Order made by Barnes J. to
anonymize the style of cause and Reasons in A.B. The Order made by
Barnes J. reads as follows:
THIS
COURT ORDERS that the style of cause, Reasons and all other
electronically accessible docket information in this proceeding shall be
amended by replacing the names of the Applicants with the following initials:
A.B., B.B., C.B. and D.B.
[4]
In support
of their motion, the applicants argue that the Court may grant the Order sought
on the basis of rule 4 of the Federal Courts Rules, i.e. the “gap rule”,
which provides as follows:
|
4. On
motion, the Court may provide for any procedural matter not provided for in
these Rules or in an Act of Parliament by analogy to these Rules or by
reference to the practice of the superior court of the province to which the
subject matter of the proceeding most closely relates.
|
4. En cas du
silence des présentes règles ou des lois fédérales, la Cour peut, sur requête,
déterminer la procédure applicable par analogie avec les présentes règles ou
par renvoi à la pratique de la cour supérieure de la province qui est la plus
pertinente en l’espèce.
|
[5]
The
applicants also argue that the Reasons in Covarrubias are no longer
accurate because, inter alia, the name of their case has been changed
following the Order made by Barnes J.
[6]
The
applicants further argue that the amendments sought are necessary to prevent a
serious infringement of their privacy rights and that the amendments’ salutary
effects outweigh their deleterious effects. The applicants add that their
motion presents two competing policy considerations, namely, the need to
protect their privacy interests and the need for judicial proceedings to be
open.
[7]
Although
sympathetic to the applicants’ plight, I cannot grant the Order which they
seek. First, the panel (coram: Linden, Nadon, Malone JJ.A.) which rendered this
Court’s decision in Covarrubias is now functus as no appeal was ever
taken from the decision. Second, I can find no rule in the Federal Courts
Rules which would provide a basis to grant the Order sought. More
particularly, I see no basis on which I could amend or modify the Reasons of a
Judgment rendered some four years ago. Lastly, I note that Barnes J. made his
Order on the basis that it was “an appropriate situation to grant the relief
requested”. I need not decide whether that was a basis upon which he could
grant the relief sought.
[8]
I
have therefore not been persuaded that I should grant the Order sought by the
applicants and, as a result, the motion will be dismissed.
“M.
Nadon
Email this Content