Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

  IMM-4935-96

 

 

 

BETWEEN:  HILDA DEL CARMEN ANDRADE SOTO,

 

  Applicant,

 

 

  AND:

 

 

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

  IMMIGRATION,

 

  Respondent.

 

 

 

 

  REASONS FOR ORDER

 

 

 

NOËL J.

 

 

  Counsel for the applicant was wrong to request that his motion proceed under Rule 324, and the prothonotary should not have agreed to dispose of it under that rule since an oral hearing had been requested in respect of one of the two arguments made in support of the motion.  It was therefore inappropriate to proceed under Rule 324.

 

  The prothonotary’s decision is accordingly set aside, and the applicant is free to make her motion for an extension of time again so that a hearing can be held to dispose of it.  Since the prothonotary has already ruled on the issue to be decided, the motion must be heard by someone else.

 

 

    Marc Noël 

   Judge

 

MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC

May 28, 1997

 

 

Certified true translation

 

 

 

A. Poirier


 

 


  FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

 

  NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

 

 

COURT FILE NO.:  IMM-4935-96

 

 

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:  HILDA DEL CARMEN ANDRADE SOTO,

 

  Applicant,

 

  AND:

 

  MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

  IMMIGRATION,

 

  Respondent.

 

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:  Montréal, Quebec

 

 

 

DATE OF HEARING:  May 26, 1997

 

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER BY:  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NOËL

 

 

 

DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER:  May 28, 1997

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:  Michel Lebrun  for the Applicant

 

 

  Ian Hicks  for the Respondent

 

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

  Michel Lebrun  for the Applicant

  Montréal, Quebec

 

 

  Ian Hicks  for the Respondent

  Department of Justice Canada

  Montréal, Quebec


  Federal Court of Canada

 

 

  Court No.  IMM-4935-96 

 

 

 

 

 

BETWEEN:

 

 

 

  HILDA DEL CARMEN ANDRADE SOTO,

 

  Applicant,

 

 

 

  and

 

 

 

MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

  IMMIGRATION,

 

  Respondent.

 

 

 

 

 

  REASONS FOR 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.