Date: 20040330
Docket: IMM-1722-03
Citation: 2004 FC 485
Toronto, Ontario, March 30th, 2004
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
BETWEEN:
IVAN SKOBREV
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Ivan Skobrev (the "Applicant") seeks judicial review of the decision of Visa Officer Daniel Unram (the "Visa Officer"), dated January 9, 2003. In his decision, the Visa Officer refused the Applicant's request for a temporary residence visa.
[2] The Applicant, a citizen of Russia, sought admission into Canada for the purpose of participating in the World Sprint Speed Skating Competition scheduled for January 10 to 30, 2003. The Visa Officer refused the application because, according to his affidavit, he was not satisfied that the Applicant had demonstrated that he would fact be entering Canada for a temporary purpose. A factor that weighed heavily with the Visa Officer was a lack of evidence. Concerning the strength and adequacy of the Applicant's family ties with Russia.
[3] Two issue arise in this application. The first is whether this application for judicial review is moot, having regard to the fact that the reason for the Applicant's request for a temporary visa, that is in speed skating competition, no longer exists. The second issue is whether the Applicant has showed that the Visa Officer committed a reviewable error in the manner in which he assessed the Applicant's application.
[4] The test for mootness is set out in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, at page 353. The question of mootness arises from a general policy that the Court should decline to decide cases involving abstract or hypothetical cases, as when the subject of the lis has disappeared. However, even if that is the case, the Court has a discretion to hear the case and in exercising that discretion, the Court should consider whether there remain a live controversy, the need for an adversarial relationship in Court, judicial economy and the possibility that a decision to hear the case might be viewed as an intrusion upon the role of the legislative branch.
[5] In the present case, the parties agree that the lis has disappeared since the event for which the Applicant sought temporary admission into Canada has been overtaken by the passage of time. The Respondent argues that the Court should decline to hear this application and the Applicant, relying on Kassam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 138 F.T.R. 60, submits that the present Applicant should be adjudicated because the negative decision of the Visa Officer may adversely affect his future attempts to obtain entry into Canada.
[6] I am of the view that the within application should proceed, notwithstanding the expiry of the reason for the Applicant's request for a visitor's visa. The Applicant successfully obtained leave to proceed with this application for judicial review. This occured in the context of an adversarial process, since this Respondent opposed the application for leave. Further, the evidence is unclear whether future efforts to obtain entrance into Canada would be adversely affected by the negative decision under review.
[7] The dispositive issue in this application is whether the Visa Officer committed a reviewable error in making his decision, having regard to the applicable standard of review. Does the decision meet the requirements of procedural fairness and are the factual findings of the Visa Officer supported by the evidence before him?
[8] In my opinion, the record supports the conclusion of the Visa Officer concerning the insufficiency of evidence about the Applicant's family ties in Russia. While the status of the Applicant's mother in the United States of America is not a relevant consideration in relation to the Applicant's request for a visitor's visa to enter Canada, the same cannot be said of the Visa Officer's concern about the whereabouts of the Applicant's parents in Russia. On the balance of probability, I am satisfied that the Visa Officer addressed his mind to relevant considerations concerning the Applicant's family ties and relationships in Russia. The decision he reached is not patently unreasonable and is supported by the evidence presented.
[9] The application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the application for judicial review is dismissed. There is no question for certification arising.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-1722-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: IVAN SKOBREV
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 23, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY : HENEGHAN J.
DATED: MARCH 30, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Irvin Sherman
FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Greg George
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Martinello & Associates
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT
FEDERAL COURT
TRIAL DIVISION
Date: 20040330
Docket: IMM-1722-03
BETWEEN:
IVAN SKOBREV
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER