|
Federal Court |
|
Cour fédérale |
Ottawa, Ontario, March 17, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Near
BETWEEN:
and
AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] The Applicant sought judicial review of the outstanding decision on a spousal sponsorship application filed by the Applicant on May 29, 2006, and not decided by the Respondent for reasons not known to the Applicant at the time his application for judicial review was filed. The Applicant sought the following relief by way of judicial review:
An order requiring that the respondent process the application for spousal sponsorship for landing from outside Canada in accordance with the policy provisions set out in IP 2 and OP 24 of the Immigration Manuel (sic) and other guidelines. Any further relief this Honourable Court may deem just and proper.
[2] On December 17, 2009, permanent resident visas were issued to the Applicant’s wife and infant son.
[3] This application is moot. There is no longer a live issue between the parties and the Court declines to exercise its discretion to decide the matter on the merits (see Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; [1989] S.C.J. No. 14).
[4] The sole matter that the Applicant is now raising is the issue of costs and whether special reasons exist for the awarding of costs against the Respondent. Given the history of this file there is a question as to whether the Court should consider the matter of costs as a live issue as between the parties given that the substantive issues have all been resolved. However, I have decided that it is appropriate to consider the matter of costs based on the facts of this case.
[5] The Applicant argues that the Court should find that special reasons exist pursuant to Rule 22 of The Federal Court Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, (SOR/93-22). The Applicant takes the position that there was an unreasonable delay in the processing of the Applicant’s sponsorship application for his wife and child and invited the Court to “send a message” to the Minister that these applications should be processed in a more timely fashion.
[6] The initial sponsorship application was made in May, 2006, it was approved in May 2009, and the visas were issued in December 2009. The sole reasons for the visas not being issued earlier was the wife’s pregnancy and inability to travel. Thus, the processing time in question from application to approval is slightly less than three years.
[7] The Respondent acknowledges that the time to process the sponsorship application was somewhat longer than the norm, but states that there is no evidence of bad faith and that there were circumstances in this case that led to the longer timeframe. The Respondent argues it had fully explained the reasons for the delay to the Applicant throughout the process.
[8] I agree that there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Respondent or that the Respondent acted in a way that could be described as unfair, oppressive or improper in the conduct of this litigation, or prolonged the proceedings as contemplated by this Court in Johnson v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 1262; 275 F.T.R. 316, and Huot v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FC 917; 83 Imm. L.R. (3d) 144. Further investigation of the sponsorship application was required to consider allegations of an “immigration marriage” made against the Applicant and lead to the delays. Accordingly, I find that there are no special reasons to award costs against the Respondent.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that:
1. this application is dismissed; and
2. there is no order as to costs.
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2383-09
STYLE OF CAUSE: BOPARAI v. MCI
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 9, 2010
APPEARANCES:
|
Allan Blott
|
FOR THE APPLICANT |
|
David Knapp
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Professional Corporation of Lawyers Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT |
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General Canada
|
n