Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19990527


Docket: IMM-3382-98

BETWEEN:

     YI ZHAO,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     THE MINISTER of CITIZENSHIP

     and IMMIGRATION,

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

NADON J.

[1]      On January 22, 1999 Mr. Justice McKeown made an order requiring the applicant to show cause why his application for judicial review should not be dismissed for delay.

[2]      Following the receipt of the applicant"s written representations, I convened the parties to a hearing held by way of conference call on April 9, 1999. During the conference call, I indicated to Mr. Leahy, counsel for the applicant, that I had read and understood the reasons why the applicant had not moved his file forward. However, I indicated to Mr. Leahy that the file had to move forward and, in that respect, I invited him to indicate to me and to counsel for the Minister when he expected to be in a position to file an application record.

[3]      On May 20, 1999 Mr. Leahy wrote to the Court, with a copy to counsel for the Minister, indicating that he could file the applicant"s application record by June 8, 1999. On May 25, 1999 Ms. Zoric, counsel for the Minister, informed the Court that June 8, 1999 was acceptable. On May 27, 1999 during a hearing by way of conference call, I informed the parties that I would make an order giving effect to the June 8, 1999 deadline.

[4]      Consequently, it is hereby ordered that the applicant shall file his application record no later than June 8, 1999. The respondent shall then file his record within the delay set out in rule 310.

[5]      In view of the delay that has already taken place, it goes without saying that this order contemplates that the applicant will, in the future, comply with the delays set out in the rules, and more particularly, with rule 314 which requires him to serve and file a requisition for a hearing within 10 days after service of the respondent"s record. I am, obviously, not unmindful of the fact that this delay is subject to the possibility that either party may seek leave of the Court pursuant to rule 312.

[6]      In any event, however, the applicant is expected to pursue his application in a diligent manner.

Toronto, Ontario      "Marc Nadon"

May 27, 1999      J.F.C.C.

                                        


     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-3382-98
STYLE OF CAUSE:                      YI ZHAO,

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                             AND IMMIGRATION

    

                            
DATE OF HEARING:                  THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY:      NADON J.

DATED:                          THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1999
APPEARANCES:                      Mr. Timothy Leahy

                                 For the Applicant

                             Ms. Marianne Zoric

                                 For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              Timothy Leahy

                             Barrister & Solicitor

                             Suite 408, 5075 Yonge Street

                             Toronto, Ontario

                             M2N 6C6

                                 For the Applicant

                             Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General

                             of Canada

                                 For the Respondent

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date: 19990527

                        

         Docket: IMM-3382-98

    

                             Between:

                             YI ZHAO

     Applicant

                             - and -

                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                             AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

                            

            

                            

                                            

                              REASONS FOR ORDER

                                 AND ORDER

                                                         


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.