Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19990901


Docket: IMM-567-99

BETWEEN:

     THI NGOC HUYEN NGUYEN

     Applicant

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

EVANS J.:

[1]      This is a motion appealing an order of Prothonotary Roger R. Lafrenière dated July 13, 1999 in which the Prothonotary refused an extension of time to enable the applicant to file a supplementary application record in her application for leave and for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Appeal Division dated January 25, 1999 dismissing the applicant"s appeal against her deportation.

[2]      Counsel did not satisfy me that the Prothonotary had erred in principle or had misapprehended the evidence before him. Nor was I satisfied that the order raised questions vital to the final issue of the case. On the assumption that a matter raised with respect to an application for leave can ever relate to the "final issue of the case", the affidavit and additional arguments that counsel wishes to include in the further memorandum of fact and law are not "vital" to the disposition of the leave application.

[3]      Important as this matter obviously is to the applicant and to her children a voluntary change of counsel will not normally justify an extension of time to enable new counsel to submit additional material after the first counsel has filed and served a complete application record in timely fashion.

[4]      The avoidance of delay in the processing and determination of judicial review proceedings arising from decisions made or other administrative action taken under the Immigration Act is an important statutory objective.

[5]      Further, to permit the applicant to "split her case" by submitting a new affidavit and an expanded memorandum of fact and law after counsel for the Minister has responded to the original application record may give the applicant an inappropriate advantage.

[6]      For these reasons the motion is dismissed without costs.

                                 "John M. Evans"

     JUDGE

TORONTO, ONTARIO

September 1, 1999


     FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                    

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

COURT NO:                          IMM-567-99
STYLE OF CAUSE:                      THI NGOC HUYEN NGUYEN

    

                             - and -
                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
             AND IMMIGRATION

                            

DATE OF HEARING:                  MONDAY, AUGUST 30, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING:                  TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY:      EVANS J.

DATED:                          WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1999

APPEARANCES:                      Ms. Mary Lam

                                 For the Applicant

                             Ms. Marianne Zoric

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              Cecil L. Rotenberg, Q.C.

                             Barristers & Solicitors

                             255 Duncan Mill Road

                             Suite 808

                             Toronto, Ontario

                             M3B 3H9

                                 For the Applicant

                              Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                 For the Respondent

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                                 Date:19990901

                        

         Docket: IMM-567-99

                             Between:

                             THI NGOC HUYEN NGUYEN

     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.