Federal Court of Appeal· 2015Unreviewed source text
Jia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
2015 FCA 146
ImmigrationJD
Cite or share
Showing unreviewed source text. Provenance under review — verify against the linked original before relying on it.
Source text
Jia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2015-06-15 Neutral citation 2015 FCA 146 File numbers A-320-14 Decision Content Date: 20150615 Docket: A-320-14 Citation: 2015 FCA 146 CORAM: RYER J.A. WEBB J.A. RENNIE J.A. BETWEEN: BAOXIAN JIA (As well as all other Appellants attached as “Appendix A” to the within Notice) Appellants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 15, 2015. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 15, 2015. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: RYER J.A. Date: 20150615 Docket: A-320-14 Citation: 2015 FCA 146 CORAM: RYER J.A. WEBB J.A. RENNIE J.A. BETWEEN: BAOXIAN JIA (As well as all other Appellants attached as “Appendix A” to the within Notice) Appellants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 15, 2015). RYER J.A. [1] We are all of the view that the appeals in files A-117-14, a decision of Boivin J. (as he then was) and A-320-14, a decision of Gleason J. (collectively Boivin J. and Gleason J. are referred to as the “Federal Court Judges”) are moot. The applications that were before the Federal Court Judges in these appeals were for orders of mandamus to compel the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to process applications for permanent residence under the federal Immigrant Investor Program (“IIP”) in the Immigra…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Jia v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2015-06-15 Neutral citation 2015 FCA 146 File numbers A-320-14 Decision Content Date: 20150615 Docket: A-320-14 Citation: 2015 FCA 146 CORAM: RYER J.A. WEBB J.A. RENNIE J.A. BETWEEN: BAOXIAN JIA (As well as all other Appellants attached as “Appendix A” to the within Notice) Appellants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 15, 2015. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 15, 2015. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: RYER J.A. Date: 20150615 Docket: A-320-14 Citation: 2015 FCA 146 CORAM: RYER J.A. WEBB J.A. RENNIE J.A. BETWEEN: BAOXIAN JIA (As well as all other Appellants attached as “Appendix A” to the within Notice) Appellants and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 15, 2015). RYER J.A. [1] We are all of the view that the appeals in files A-117-14, a decision of Boivin J. (as he then was) and A-320-14, a decision of Gleason J. (collectively Boivin J. and Gleason J. are referred to as the “Federal Court Judges”) are moot. The applications that were before the Federal Court Judges in these appeals were for orders of mandamus to compel the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to process applications for permanent residence under the federal Immigrant Investor Program (“IIP”) in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, (“IRPA”) that had not been processed as fast as the applicants desired. [2] The decision under appeal in A-320-14 was rendered on June 23, 2014. Four days earlier, section 87.5 of the IRPA came into force. Its effect was to terminate all of the applications of the appellants in these appeals. [3] Before this Court, the Crown asserts that the effect of section 87.5 of the IRPA is to render all of the appeals moot on the basis that all of the applications have been terminated. [4] The leading case on mootness is Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342. At page 353 Justice Sopinka states: The doctrine of mootness is an aspect of a general policy or practice that a court may decline to decide a case which raises merely a hypothetical or abstract question. The general principle applies when the decision of the court will not have the effect of resolving some controversy which affects or may affect the rights of the parties. If the decision of the court will have no practical effect on such rights, the court will decline to decide the case. This essential ingredient must be present not only when the action or proceeding is commenced but at the time when the court is called upon to reach a decision. Accordingly if, subsequent to the initiation of the action or proceeding, events occur which affect the relationship of the parties so that no present live controversy exists which affects the rights of the parties, the case is said to be moot. The general policy or practice is enforced in moot cases unless the court exercises its discretion to depart from its policy or practice. The relevant factors relating to the exercise of the court's discretion are discussed hereinafter. [5] In the present circumstances, the live controversy was whether the Minister could be compelled by mandamus to process the applications that were outstanding at the time that the mandamus applications were made to, and heard by, the Federal Court Judges. [6] The enactment of section 87.5 terminated all of the applications under the IIP. As a result, the issue of whether the Minister could be forced to process these applications was no longer a live controversy. [7] The constitutional validity of section 87.5 of the IRPA was not part of the controversy before either of the Federal Court Judges. Neither was the question of whether an order of mandamus could be granted, on some basis, to compel the Minister to process applications under the IIP that had been terminated. We are not inclined to entertain these issues as a matter of first instance on appeal. [8] Having concluded that the appeals are moot, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion to hear them, as we believe that doing so would have no practical effect. [9] For the foregoing reasons, we would dismiss the appeals without costs. A copy of these reasons should be placed in the files in both A-320-14 and A-117-14. "C. Michael Ryer" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE GLEASON OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA, DATED JUNE 23, 2014, DOCKET NO. IMM-2621-13 DOCKET: A-320-14 STYLE OF CAUSE: BAOXIAN JIA (As well as all other Appellants attached as “Appendix A” to the within Notice) v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: June 15, 2015 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: RYER J.A. WEBB J.A. RENNIE J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: RYER J.A. APPEARANCES: Rocco Galati For The AppellantS Lorne McClenaghan Daniel Engel For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Rocco Galati Barristers and Solicitors Toronto, Ontario For The AppellantS William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent Appendix A 1. IMM-2501-13 MOHSEN ESMAEILI v MCI 2. IMM-2503-13 KRISHNAN KUMAR BANSAL v MCI 3. IMM-2508-13 HASSAN GHOLAMPOUR v MCI 4. IMM-2509-13 ALIREZA NIKOONASIRI v MCI 5. IMM-2510-13 AHMAD NASSERI KARUMU VAND v MCI 6. IMM-2511-13 NASER JAFARPOUR v MCI 7. IMM-2512-13 HASSAN HOOSHYAR v MCI 8. IMM-2517-13 NOSRATOLLAH HOMAYOON v MCI 9. IMM-2518-13 MOHAMMED GHANAVIZI v MCI 10. IMM-2617-13 YAN LIN DU v MCI 11. IMM-2618-13 JUN HU v MCI 12. IMM-2619-13 JUN HUANG v MCI 13. IMM-2620-13 XINGPING HUA v MCI 14. IMM-2622-13 HUI JIANG v MCI 15. IMM-2623-13 ZHONGCUN JIANG v MCI 16. IMM-2625-13 ZHONGLIN JIANG v MCI 17. IMM-2630-13 JIANSHENG LI v MCI 18. IMM-2631-13 LUMIN LI v MCI 19. IMM-2635-13 JIANG LONG v MCI 20. IMM-2637-13 SHUNYOU MA v MCI 21. IMM-2638-13 YING TAO MA v MCI 22. IMM-2642-13 WENYAN QIN v MCI 23. IMM-2646-13 JINSHENG XU v MCI 24. IMM-2647-13 TING LI v MCI 25. IMM-2651-13 CHENGRUI LIM v MCI 26. IMM-2653-13 YANGYONG LIN v MCI 27. IMM-2654-13 LIN LIU v MCI 28. IMM-2656-13 JIYUN LIU v MCI 29. IMM-2657-13 LIKUN SHI v MCI 30. IMM-2658-13 SWENZENG YANG v MCI 31. IMM-2659-13 SHENGLI SHI v MCI 32. IMM-2660-13 MEILING YUAN v MCI 33. IMM-2663-13 HUI ZHANG v MCI 34. IMM-2665-13 LEI ZHANG v MCI 35. IMM-2666-13 XIAOJING WANG v MCI 36. IMM-2667-13 YAN ZHANG v MCI 37. IMM-2668-13 YUN ZHANG v MCI 38. IMM-2669-13 YUN WANG v MCI 39. IMM-2670-13 CUNXIONG ZHENG v MCI 40. IMM-2671-13 HUI ZHU v MCI 41. IMM-2672-13 SHUHE ZHU v MCI 42. IMM-2674-13 SHUNYUN ZHU v MCI 43. IMM-2676-13 CHANGFENG WU v MCI 44. IMM-2678-13 JING XIONG v MCI 45. IMM-2679-13 DUOYU XU v MCI 46. IMM-3892-13 IAN FREDERICK STOPFORTH v MCI 47. IMM-3894-13 ZIXIANG ZHANG v MCI 48. IMM-4985-13 ZHEWEI LIU v MCI 49. IMM-4986-13 HAILONG YU v MCI 50. IMM-4988-13 LIN YU v MCI 51. IMM-4990-13 JUHAI SHAN v MCI 52. IMM-4992-13 SONGQIAO YANG v MCI 53. IMM-5221-13 TIANHUA LIU v MCI 54. IMM-5222-13 LIZHU WANG v MCI 55. IMM-5223-13 XIUZHI CHEN v MCI 56. IMM-5224-13 HONGXIA GONG v MCI 57. IMM-5363-13 JIAHONG HU v MCI 58. IMM-5365-13 HONGFEI LI v MCI 59. IMM-5366-13 WENJI LI v MCI 60. IMM-5542-13 GUI v MCI 61. IMM-5543-13 GUO v MCI 62. IMM-7084-13 ZUQIANG PAN v MCI 63. IMM-7085-13 GUIYUN PAN v MCI 64. IMM-7086-13 YING CHEN v MCI 65. IMM-7724-13 LI JIN v MCI 66. IMM-7727-13 YONGPENG WANG v MCI 67. IMM-8102-13 XIAOAN ZHENG v MCI 68. IMM-8104-13 YIWEN ZHANG v MCI 69. IMM-8107-13 WENSHEN XIAO v MCI 70. IMM-8108-13 CHUNFENG SHEN v MCI 71. IMM-8110-13 WEI QU v MCI 72. IMM-8111-13 ZHUOBIN LIU v MCI 73. IMM-8112-13 DEWEN GONG v MCI 74. IMM-8113-13 CHUANLI GAO v MCI 75. IMM-8114-13 YI CAI v MCI 76. IMM-8350-13 YONG SUN v MCI 77. IMM-8354-13 YUWEI CHEN v MCI 78. IMM-8355-13 MING CONG v MCI 79. IMM-8357-13 JISEN DENG v MCI 80. IMM-8382-13 BOXIANG MA v MCI 81. IMM-8383-13 DANNA WU v MCI 82. IMM-8384-13 ZHIJUN WU v MCI 83. IMM-8385-13 CHUNLIN YE v MCI 84. IMM-8389-13 LIYI ZHONG v MCI 85. IMM-8391-13 WEIBIN LIAO v MCI 86. IMM-8394-13 YIXIANG LI v MCI 87. IMM-8395-13 MINREN LIANG v MCI 88. IMM-8396-13 HUIFANG LIANG v MCI 89. IMM-8397-13 MEIRONG LI v MCI 90. IMM-8404-13 GUORU LI v MCI 91. IMM-8405-13 ZHITONG HAN v MCI 92. IMM-8407-13 HANG FENG v MCI 93. IMM-8408-13 YONGXIA DENG v MCI 94. IMM-204-14 LINFENG JIN v MCI
Source: decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca
Read next in Immigration
Federal Court of Appeal · 2024
Démocratie en surveillance c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 158
5 more related cases below
Related cases
Démocratie en surveillance c. Canada (Procureur général)
2024 CAF 158
Federal Court of Appeal· 2024· Immigration
French c. Légion royale canadienne (Direction nationale)
2024 CAF 63
Federal Court of Appeal· 2024· Immigration
Canada (Sécurité publique et Protection civile) c. Weldemariam
2024 CAF 69
Federal Court of Appeal· 2024· Immigration
Reisdorf c. Canada (Procureur général)
2023 CAF 188
Federal Court of Appeal· 2023· Immigration
Hokhold c. Canada (Procureur général)
2023 CAF 203
Federal Court of Appeal· 2023· Immigration
Lafond c. Canada (Immigration, Réfugiés et Citoyenneté)
2023 CAF 227
Federal Court of Appeal· 2023· Immigration