Shaka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Shaka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2019-08-22
Neutral citation
2019 FC 1094
File numbers
IMM-1757-18
Decision Content
Date: 20190822
Docket: IMM-1757-18
Citation: 2019 FC 1094
Ottawa, Ontario, August 22, 2019
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Norris
BETWEEN:
BRADLEY SHAKA
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
ORDER AND REASONS
[1] In a Judgment and Reasons dated June 11, 2019, the Court dismissed the applicant’s application for mandamus and related declaratory relief (Shaka v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2019 FC 798 [Shaka]). The Court also declined to certify any questions of general importance under paragraph 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 (see Shaka at paras 81-84).
[2] By Notice of Motion dated June 21, 2019, the applicant moves in writing under Rule 397 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, for reconsideration of the refusal to certify the question he had proposed. The respondent opposes the motion.
[3] Rule 397(1)(b) provides that a party may request that the Court reconsider the terms of an order it has made on the grounds that “a matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted.”
[4] The law is very clear that the purpose of a motion under Rule 397(1)(b) is to permit a party to raise with the Court the question of whether it had failed (inadvertently or accidentally) to deal with something that was put to it: see Taker v Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FCA 83 at paras 3-4 [Taker] and Yeager v Day, 2013 FCA 258 at para 9. It cannot be used to reverse what has already been ordered (Taker at para 4).
[5] The law is equally clear that Rule 397(1)(b) is not meant to provide a losing party with an opportunity to re-argue its case: see Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limitée v Eurocopter, 2013 FCA 261 at para 15 and Georgoulas v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 245 at para 8. However, in twelve pages of written submissions (and six pages of reply submissions) that is exactly what the applicant has attempted to do.
[6] The motion is dismissed.
ORDER IN IMM-1757-18
THIS COURT ORDERS that
The motion for reconsideration is dismissed.
“John Norris”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
IMM-1757-18
STYLE OF CAUSE:
BRADLEY SHAKA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES
ORDER AND REASONS:
NORRIS J.
DATED:
August 22, 2019
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Raoul Boulakia
For The Applicant
Nadine Silverman
For The Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Raoul Boulakia
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
For The Applicant
Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
For The Respondent