Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content




Date: 19991215


Docket: A-129-97

CORAM:      STONE, J.A.

         LINDEN, J.A.

         ROTHSTEIN, J.A.


BETWEEN:


SENAR SINNAPPU

THILAGAWATHY SINNAPPU

     Appellants

    

     - and -




THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION


Respondent





Heard at Toronto, Ontario, Wednesday, December 15, 1999


Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario

on Wednesday, December 15, 1999






REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:      STONE J.A.




Date: 19991215


Docket: A-129-97

CORAM:      STONE, J.A.

         LINDEN, J.A.

         ROTHSTEIN, J.A.


BETWEEN:


SENAR SINNAPPU

THILAGAWATHY SINNAPPU

     Appellants

    

     - and -




THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION


Respondent



     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

     (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario

     on Wednesday, December 15, 1999)

STONE J.A.


This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the Trial Division on an application for judicial review pursuant to the leave granted by the Trial Division.1

During the argument the Court was made aware of the fact that the appellants were granted landing in Canada on June 8, 1999. It seems to us, therefore, that the appeal should ordinarily be regarded as moot. Indeed counsel for the appellants stated that his clients "have absolutely no interest in this appeal".


It seems, however, the appeal was intended as a "test" case for the determination of a further number of cases involving the same issue and for which leave was similarly granted by the Trial Division to bring applications for judicial review. Those applications are still pending. We were advised by counsel that, while in many of those cases landing has been granted, in at least two of them landing has not been granted.


In these circumstances there would appear to be no basis for allowing this moot appeal to be heard and be judicially disposed of.


Accordingly, the appeal will be dismissed for mootness.

     "A. J. Stone"

     J.A.

              FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

     Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

                            

DOCKETS:                      A-129-97
STYLE OF CAUSE:                  SENAR SINNAPPU
                         THILAGAWATHY SINNAPPU

     Applicant

                         - and -
                         THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent

DATE OF HEARING:              WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1999

PLACE OF HEARING:              TORONTO, ONTARIO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT BY:              STONE J.A.

Delivered at Toronto, Ontario on Wednesday, December 15, 1999

APPEARANCES:                  Mr. Lorne Waldman

                             For the Applicant

                                    

                         Mr. Kevin Lunney

                        

                 For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:          Jackman, Waldman & Associates

                         Barristers & Solicitors

                         281 Eglinton Avenue East

                         Toronto, Ontario

                         M4P 1L3
                             For the Applicant
                         Morris Rosenberg
                         Deputy Attorney General of Canada
                             For the Respondent

                         FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL


Date: 19991215


Docket: A-129-97

                        

                         BETWEEN:

                         SENAR SINNAPPU
                         THILAGAWATHY SINNAPPU

     Appellants


                         - and -



                         THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent



                        

                         REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
                         OF THE COURT

                        

__________________

     1      The appellants have been unsuccessful in claiming refugee status, and then became subject to a removal order. The principal issue taken in the appeal is that the removal of the appellants from Canada in the way that it was carried out would violate the appellants" section 7 Charter rights.

 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.