Colaco v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Colaco v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2006-08-15
Neutral citation
2006 FC 978
File numbers
IMM-5186-05
Notes
Digest
Decision Content
Date: 20060815
Docket: IMM-5186-05
Citation: 2006 FC 978
Ottawa, Ontario, August 15, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes
BETWEEN:
PETER ANTHONY COLACO
SAVITA COLACO
Applicant(s)
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent(s)
SUPPLEMENTAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1] In my Reasons for Judgment rendered on July 19, 2006 in this case, I allowed either party to propose a certified question. The Respondent has now done so and proposes the following question for certification:
Does the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Hilewitz and de Jong apply to individuals applying to immigrate to Canada as skilled workers?
[2] The Applicants oppose the certification of a question and have submitted that the issue which the Respondent seeks to raise on appeal “is not a new question”.
[3] It is clear to me that the question proposed by the Respondent would be determinative of the outcome of this case because the scope of the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 706 was the sole basis upon which I ruled in favor of the Applicants. While I have some reservations about the seriousness of the question proposed, I am not completely satisfied that the issue which the Respondent now seeks to raise was squarely addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hilewitz or in the other cases which that Court cited with approval.
[4] This issue is also one which has been raised in earlier cases before this Court. In Hossain v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2006] F.C.J. No. 602, 2006 FC 475, Justice Johanne Gauthier was asked to certify a similar question in the context of a family member with a medical disability. There, the issue was held to be premature and not determinative, albeit potentially “relevant in the future”.
[5] Subsequently, in Kirec v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2006] F.C.J. No. 1017, 2006 FC 800, Justice Pierre Blais was asked to rule on the application of the Hilewitz case to the skilled worker category of immigrant. He found it unnecessary to deal with that issue because the family had not presented an adequate factual basis for the issue to be resolved.
[6] There is an arguable ambiguity in the reasoning of the Court in Hilewitz, one interpretation of which would support the Respondent’s position. I will, therefore, certify the question proposed by the Respondent in this case.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ADJUDGES that the following question be certified in this case:
Does the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hilewitz v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 706 apply to individuals applying to immigrate to Canada as skilled workers?
"R. L. Barnes"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-5186-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: PETER ANTHONY COLACO ET AL
v.
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 28, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
AND JUDGMENT BY: BARNES, J.
DATED: August 15, 2006
APPEARANCES:
Mario Bellissimo FOR APPLICANTS
Catherine Vasilaros FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mario Bellissimo FOR APPLICANT
Ormston, Bellissimo, Rotenberg
Barristers & Solicitors
Toronto, Ontario
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
Ontario Regional Office
Toronto, Ontario