Kopacz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Kopacz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2010-06-16
Neutral citation
2010 FC 654
File numbers
IMM-3272-10
Decision Content
Federal Court
Cour fédérale
Date: 20100616
Docket: IMM-3272-10
Citation: 2010 FC 654
Toronto
,
Ontario
, June 16, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Keefe
BETWEEN:
MICHAL KRZYSZTOF KOPACZ
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is a motion by the applicant for an order allowing the applicant to be represented by his friend, Ben Gondek.
[2] The applicant has no status in
Canada
and thus, cannot work. He is unable to afford legal counsel and is not eligible for legal assistance.
[3] The applicant’s friend, Mr. Gondek, is not a lawyer. He is a former director of a Polish credit union in
Toronto
.
Issue
[4] Should Mr. Gondek, a non-lawyer, be allowed to represent the applicant in Federal Court?
Analysis and Decision
[5] Rule 119 of the Federal Courts Rules allows the applicant to represent himself or to be represented by a solicitor. There is no provision for representation by another person who is not a solicitor.
[6] However, the Federal Court of Appeal in Erdmann v.
Canada
, [2001] F.C.J. No. 834 stated at paragraphs 10 and 11:
10 I have also considered whether this is an appropriate case to grant Mr. Swift leave to represent Ms. Erdmann even though he is not a lawyer. According to Rule 119, an individual may act in person or be represented by a lawyer. There is no specific provision that permits a non-lawyer to represent a litigant who is an individual.
11 An argument might be made that the Court has the inherent jurisdiction to permit representation by a non-lawyer if the interests of justice so require. Assuming, without deciding, that I have the requisite jurisdiction, I would not be inclined to exercise it in this case to permit Ms. Erdmann to be represented by Mr. Swift.
[7] The applicant wishes to have Mr. Gondek represent him because he states he does not speak English well and he does not know the law.
[8] I would note that the applicant has submitted his own affidavit in English. Rule 80(2.1) of the Federal Courts Rules states:
80.(2.1) Where an affidavit is written in an official language for a deponent who does not understand that official language, the affidavit shall
(a) be translated orally for the deponent in the language of the deponent by a competent and independent interpreter who has taken an oath, in Form 80B, as to the performance of his or her duties; and
(b) contain a jurat in Form 80C.
80.(2.1) Lorsqu’un affidavit est rédigé dans une des langues officielles pour un déclarant qui ne comprend pas cette langue, l’affidavit doit :
(a) être traduit oralement pour le déclarant dans sa langue par un interprète indépendant et compétent qui a prêté le serment, selon la formule 80B, de bien exercer ses fonctions;
(b) comporter la formule d’assermentation prévue à la formule 80C.
[9] As no certificate of translation (Form 80B) was filed, I would infer that the applicant gave the information for the affidavit in English.
[10] The respondent also indicated at the hearing of this motion that an interpreter could be made available for the hearing.
[11] I would note that the applicant also wishes to have Mr. Gondek represent him because he does not know the law. The affidavit evidence does not tell me whether Mr. Gondek knows the law.
[12] As a result of the above conclusions and after considering the motion material and the remarks of the parties, I am not prepared to allow the applicant to be represented by Mr. Gondek who is a non-lawyer.
[13] The applicant’s motion is therefore dismissed.
[14] There shall be no order for costs.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The applicant’s motion is dismissed.
2. There shall be no order for costs.
“John A. O’Keefe”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-3272-10
STYLE OF CAUSE: MICHAL KRZYSZTOF KOPACZ v.
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING:
Toronto ,
Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: June 14, 2010
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER OF: O’KEEFE J.
DATED: June 16, 2010
APPEARANCES:
Michal Krzysztof Kopacz
FOR THE APPLICANT
(Self-represented)
Monmi Goswami
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
N/A
FOR THE APPLICANT
(Self-represented)
Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy Attorney General of
Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT