Date: 19980122
Docket: IMM-4457-97
BETWEEN:
YeVGENI SAVVATEEV
Applicant
-and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Let the attached certified transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered orally from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on December 1, 1997, be filed to comply with S. 51 of the Federal Court Act.
« James A. Jerome » A.C.J.
Court File No. IMM-4457-97
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
B E T W E E N:
YEVGENI SAVVATEEV
Applicant
- and -
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION
Respondent
HELD BEFORE: The Associate Chief Justice Jerome
HELD AT: 330 University Avenue Courtroom 7, 9th Floor Toronto, Ontario
HELD ON: December 1, 1997
REPORTER: Elizabeth Tsombanakis, CVR
REGISTRAR.: Elizabeth Lam
VOLUME: I (EXCERPT)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
A P P E A R A N C E S:
| TIMOTHY LEAHY, ESQ. |
|
for the Applicant |
| TOBY HOFFMAN, ESQ. |
|
for the Respondent
|
INDEX OF PROCEEDINGS
Paqe No.
Reasons for Judgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 4
1 - Reasons for Judgment
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:
HIS LORDSHIP: Mr. Leahy, your application will fail. Here are my Reasons. I will keep them brief.
Rule 1612 has been written into our Rules to permit people who feel that they will require material that falls into two categories. First, that is in the possession of the respondent or more importantly, in this case, the Tribunal. As between applicant and respondent, there are other vehicles to pursue. But, this Rule was set up so that if the material is not in the possession of the Minister, in this case, or the applicant, but is in the hands of the Tribunal, it can be requested pursuant to 1612 which is the Rule quoted in this application. Isn't that so? That is the application Rule? That is the Rule we are operating under?
MR. HOFFMAN: That is correct, My Lord.
HIS LORDSHIP: In this case, it would appear to me that much of the material that is identified in the Notice of Motion has already been provided. One or two, in reply, Mr. Leahy argued were not. One is what he refers to as a case summary, but that appears to me to be his description of the argument about to be made on
2 - Reasons for Judgment
behalf of the Minister on the law. That would clearly be beyond the scope of this Rule to order, and similarly the other documents that are here, some in fact antedate the Tribunal's decision and therefore obviously on their face would not apply.
In any case, the requester has to satisfy me that this is a case in which such an order is not only required but would be, in some way, helpful and the applicant has simply failed to discharge that obligation. So, the application under Rule 1612 is dismissed. But, there certainly will not be any costs. Thank you.
MR. LEAHY: My Lord, may I ask you ... the back of the check list is only in the record because it is in this application's affidavit. Will the
Court permit this affidavit to be evidence in the record? Because, otherwise, it doesn't get in and it is extremely relevant to the argument that the area processing centre has a form that says, "You pick the visa post", and we use their form and pick the visa post and that is not in the record, My Lord.
HIS LORDSHIP: It is not an issue, then; is it? Well, how...
MR. HOFFMAN: My Lord, if I could help
- 3 - Reasons for Judgment
the Court, I do agree with you it is not an issue. The respondent does not deny the fact that Mr....
HIS LORDSHIP: That was requested and that is where the processing was to be done.
MR. HOFFMAN: That is correct, My Lord. As well, that information is contained in affidavits and whatnot that can be put before the Court in this matter.
HIS LORDSHIP: Thank you. That point was covered by counsel for the Minister during the course of the argument. There is no issue about the fact that the applicant requested it and was given Detroit as the location for the...
MR. LEAHY: But, My Lord, the decision was not made in Detroit. The decision was made in Buffalo.
MR. HOFFMAN: Again, My Lord, I believe my friend is here to argue the Judicial Review today. I am not prepared to do that.
MR. LEAHY: No, I am not arguing the Judicial Review. I am saying it is relevant to the Judicial Review.
HIS LORDSHIP: Mr. Leahy, I have already made my Ruling. What I will do is I will, pursuant to Section 51 edit my Reasons this afternoon and
4 - Reasons for Judgment
file it, pursuant to Section 51 of the Federal Court Act.
MR. LEAHY: My Lord, my question... forgive me. My question was: Can I consider this affidavit as part of the Ruling?
HIS LORDSHIP: I am sorry, I made...
THE REGISTRAR: This Court is now recessed.
Upon adjourning at 4:10 p.m.
I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and accurate transcription of the above noted proceedings held before me on the 1st DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 and taken to the best of my skill, ability and understanding.
Certified Correct:
Elizabeth Tsombanakis
Certified Verbatim Reporter
(416) 360-6117
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-4457-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: Yevgeni Savvateev v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: December 1, 1997
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE JEROME DATED: January 22, 1998
APPEARANCES
Mr. Timothy E. Leahy FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Toby Hoffman FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
Mr. Timothy E. Leahy FOR THE APPLICANT North York, Ontario
Mr. George Thomson FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada