Date: 20020906
Docket: IMM-1401-02
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 944
Ottawa, Ontario, this 6th day of September 2002.
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
BETWEEN:
GERTRUDE ADOMA GYIMAH,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
[1] The applicant sought leave to appeal the decision of the Immigration Appeal Division dismissing her appeal from the decision of a visa officer relating to the sponsored application for landing of her husband. The visa officer and the IAD found the marriage to be a marriage of convenience. On May 17, 2002, I dismissed the leave application for failure to file an application record.
[2] The applicant brings this motion in writing requesting that I reconsider and set aside my order and permit the applicant to file the application record.
[3] The grounds set out in the notice of motion and in the supporting affidavit of the applicant's counsel are that counsel was retained at the eleventh hour; was not familiar with immigration matters; consulted and relied on registry for information as to appropriate procedure; filed the notice of application but not the application record, not having been informed by the registry officer that the latter was required. Counsel learned of the requirement with respect to the application record on June 12, 2002 upon receipt of the order dated May 17th. The notice of motion states, "That it was simply by inadvertence and by relying upon representations made by the clerk that the undersigned did not file the application record."
[4] The responsibility to comply with the Rules rests with the party and counsel regardless of any conversation with a registry officer: Iakolev v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1996] F.C.J. No. 640 (T.D.). A request for reconsideration contemplates oversight on the part of a court, not a party: Boateng v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1990), 112 N.R. 318 (F.C.A.). An extension of time requires a satisfactory explanation for the delay and an arguable case: Grewal v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1985] 2 F.C. 263 (C.A.) and Saywack v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1986] 3 F.C. 189 (C.A.).
[5] The reasons for dismissing the motion are evident from the paragraph above. The failure of counsel to consult the Rules does not constitute a satisfactory explanation for delay. Moreover, after the notice of application was filed, counsel had adequate time to refer to the Rules before perfecting the application.
ORDER
The motion is dismissed.
_________________________________
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-1401-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: GERTRUDE ADOMA GYIMAH v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF The Honourable Madam Justice Layden-Stevenson
DATED: September 9, 2002
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Mr. Martin J. Sklar FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. François JoyalFOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
Sklar & PittsFOR THE APPLICANT
Montréal, Québec
Mr. Morris RosenbergFOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada