Date: 20000814
Docket: IMM-1391-00
BETWEEN:
SIZOV, Sergiy Pavl
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
DUBÉ J.:
[1] This application is for the reconsideration of my order dated June 14, 2000, dismissing the applicant's application for leave and for judicial review "due to the failure of the applicant to file an Application Record".
[2] On March 17, 2000, the applicant commenced an application for leave and judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated January 28, 2000, denying the applicant's application for convention refugee status.
[3] In that application, the applicant sought an extension of time. The Application Record was due on April 17, 2000, pursuant to Rule 10(1)(a) of the Federal Court Immigration Rules 1993.
[4] On May 1, 2000, the applicant obtained, with the consent of the respondent, an order extending the time for service and proof of service of his Application Record to May 6, 2000. He failed to file his Application Record within that time. Consequently, on June 14, 2000, I dismissed his application.
[5] The instant motion for reconsideration has not been filed within the 10 days delay stipulated under Rule 397 of the Federal Court Rules which provides as follows:
| 397. (1) Within 10 days after the making of an order, or within such other time as the Court may allow, a party may serve and file a notice of motion to request that the Court, as constituted at the time the order was made, reconsider its terms on the ground that |
| (a) the order does not accord with any reasons given for it; or |
| (b) a matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted. |
[6] The instant motion is outside the 10 days delay; my order does accord with the failure of the applicant to file his record; and no matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked by the judge.
[7] However, Rule 397 also provides for an extension of time "within such other time as the Court may allow". Although the applicant has not requested an extension of time in the instant motion, he now states in his affidavit in support of this motion that he had retained a solicitor with whom he had three separate appointments, paying him $200.00 on each occasion and, having been unable to reach him again, has retained his current solicitor on July 4, 2000.
[8] The new solicitor had to go to the Registry Office of this Court to obtain a copy of the applicant's file where he discovered that the matter has been dismissed. Although he has tried on numerous occasions to reach the first solicitor, he was unable to do so. He now requests a 30 day extension to file the record.
[9] Although the respondent objects to such an extension, I believe, under the circumstances, that it is fair and just to reconsider my earlier decision and to grant an extension of time for the applicant to file his Application Record.
OTTAWA, Ontario
August 14, 2000
Judge