Date: 19990114
Docket: A-412-97
CORAM: STONE J.A.
STRAYER J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
BETWEEN:
EUGUENI ROMACHKINE
Appellant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Thursday, January 14, 1999
Judgment delivered from the Bench
at Toronto, Ontario on Thursday, January 14, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 19990114
Docket: A-412-97
CORAM: STONE J.A.
STRAYER J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
BETWEEN:
EUGUENI ROMACHKINE
Appellant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on
Thursday, January 14, 1999)
DÉCARY J.A.:
[1] We are of the view that the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, no question having been certified as required by section 83 of the Immigration Act.
[2] The appellant's application for permanent residence in Canada had been refused by a visa officer in March, 1997. In April 1997, the appellant filed an application for judicial review of the visa officer decision. The application was supported by the affidavit of a person employed as a paralegal in the law firm of the appellant's previous legal counsel. The respondent filed a motion to strike the supporting affidavit and dismiss the application for judicial review. In May 1997, the motions judge granted the respondent's motion, struck the affidavit and dismissed the application for judicial review. No question was certified by the motions judge.
[3] The impugned decision is clearly "a judgment of the Federal Court - Trial Division on an application for judicial review with respect to a decision or order made under the Immigration Act" within the meaning of subsection 83(1) of that Act. There being no question certified, there can be no appeal.
[4] This case is distinguishable from that of Moldeveanu v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration1 where this Court accepted jurisdiction on the basis that the respondent in that case had only sought the striking of the supporting affidavit. There having been no order dismissing the application for judicial review, the Court was then of the view that there was no judgment on the application and that subsection 83(1) did not therefore apply.
[5] The appeal will be dismissed.
"Robert Décary"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: A-412-97
| STYLE OF CAUSE: EUGUENI ROMACHKINE |
| Appellant |
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
| Respondent |
DATE OF HEARING: THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 1999
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
Delivered at Toronto, Ontario
on Thursday, January 14, 1999
APPEARANCES: Mr. Rocco Galati
| For the Appellant |
Ms. Cheryl Mitchell
Ms. Jeremiah Eastman
For the Respondent
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Galati, Rodrigues, & Associates |
Barrister & Solicitor
637 College Street, Suite 203
Toronto, Ontario
M6G 1B5
| For the Appellant |
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
| FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL |
| Date: 19990114 |
| Docket: A-412-97 |
| BETWEEN: |
| EUGUENI ROMACHKINE |
| Appellant |
| - and - |
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
| Respondent |
| REASONS FOR JUDGMENT |
| OF THE COURT |
__________________
1 (A-413-97, August 27, 1997. Order under Rule 324 dismissing a motion to quash the appeal. The appeal in Moldeveanu was dismissed on its merit this very day by this Court.)