Date: 20070305
Docket: A-378-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 94
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
and
LI
LIU
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British
Columbia, on March
5, 2007.
Judgment delivered at Vancouver,
British Columbia, on March 5, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY
J.A.
Date: 20070305
Docket: A-378-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 94
CORAM: DÉCARY
J.A.
NOËL
J.A.
SEXTON
J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
and
LI LIU
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE
COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver,
British Columbia, on March 5, 2007)
DÉCARY J.A.
[1]
A Judge of
the Federal Court granted the respondent’s motion under Rule 8 of the Federal
Court Rules for an extension of time to file an appeal from a decision of a
citizenship judge (06-T-55).
[2]
It is
trite law that Rule 8 allows the Court to extend time limitations set out in
the Rules. It does not grant the Court jurisdiction to extend time limitations
set out in Acts of Parliament.
[3]
Subsection
14(5) of the Citizenship Act reads as follows:
(5) The Minister or the applicant may
appeal to the Court from the decision of the citizenship judge under subsection
(2) by filing a notice of appeal in the Registry of the Court within sixty days
after the day on which
(a) the
citizenship judge approved the application under subsection (2); or
(b) notice
was mailed or otherwise given under subsection (3) with respect to the
application.
(5) Le ministre et le demandeur peuvent
interjeter appel de la décision du juge de la citoyenneté en déposant un avis
d’appel au greffe de la Cour dans les soixante jours suivant la date, selon le
cas :
a) de
l’approbation de la demande;
b) de
la communication, par courrier ou tout autre moyen, de la décision de rejet.
[4]
The case
law is clear: Subsection 14(5) is mandatory and does not give the Federal Court
the jurisdiction to extend the 60-day limitation period. See Re. Conroy [1979]
99 D.L.R. (3d) 642 (Federal Court T.D., Cattanach J., at 649; Re. Dunnet,
[1979] 102 D.L.R.(3d) 400 (Federal Court T.D., Dubé J., at 402; Re. Kelly,
[1979] 96 D.L.R. (3d) 470 (Federal Court T.D., Cattanach J., at 474); Re. Araujo,
(1993) 63 F.T.R. 159 (Joyal J. at 160); Ovenstone v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), (2000) 188 F.T.R. 157 (McKeown J. at 158); Suzer
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2002 FCT 418 (Blanchard
J. at paragraph 5)
[5]
These
decisions are well-founded. The language of the time limitation is clear and unambiguous
(see, by analogy, Adam vs. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
[2001] 1, C.F. 375 (C.A.), at paragraph 19, and Wilbur-Ellis Co. of Canada v. Canada (Deputy Minister of National
Revenue, Customs and Excise – M.N.R.), [1995] F.C.J. No. 1435, A-431-94). The
Federal Court, to use the words of Blanchard J. in Suzer, “cannot create
any right or arrogate any jurisdiction it does not properly have.”
[6]
The appeal
will be allowed, the decision of the Federal Court will be set aside, and the
motion for an extension of time will be dismissed. It goes without saying that
File T-1431-06, which was opened as a result of the Judge’s order extending the
time limit, shall be closed.
“Robert Décary”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-378-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: MCI
v. LI LIU
PLACE
OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE
OF HEARING: March
5, 2007
REASONS
FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
NOËL J.A.
SEXTON
J.A.
DELIVERED
FROM THE BENCH: Décary J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Peter
Bell FOR
THE APPELLANT
No
one appearing FOR
THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
John
H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Wong
Pederson Law Offices
Vancouver,
B.C.
|
FOR THE
APPELLANT
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
|
|
|
Email this Content