Moghrabi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Moghrabi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-04-12
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 417
File numbers
T-2137-01
Decision Content
Date: 20020412
Docket: T-2137-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCT 417
Ottawa, Ontario, April 12, 2002
BEFORE: BLANCHARD J.
BETWEEN:
KAMAL MOGHRABI
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Court has before it a motion by the defendant pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules (1998), SOR/98-106, seeking:
(a) an order striking the notice of application filed by the plaintiff on December 4, 2001;
(b) alternatively, if the Court dismisses this motion, an order authorizing the defendant to serve and file the affidavits and documentation he intends to use in support of his position within 30 days of the date of the order;
(c) such other relief as the Court may see fit to order;
(d) the whole without costs.
[2] The notice of application was filed on December 4, 2002, one day after the 60-day deadline specified in s. 14(5)(b) of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29.
[3] The Citizenship Act does not allow an extension of the deadline for appealing mentioned in s. 14(5)(b). The Court does not have jurisdiction to grant any relief, in view of the late filing of the appeal. [See Adams v. Canada (M.C.I.), [2001] 1 F.C. 373 (F.C.A.), which supports the rules of law applied in Ovenstone v. Canada (Department of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 188 F.T.R. 157, at 158 (T.D.); Re Chen (1996), 122 F.T.R. 77, at 78-79 (T.D.); Canada (M.C.I.) v. Bakayoko (1993), 66 F.T.R. 133, at 135 (T.D.); Re Araujo (1993), 63 F.T.R. 159, at 160 (T.D.); Dunnett (1979), 102 D.L.R. (3d) 400, at 402 (F.C.T.D.); Re Conroy (1979), 99 D.L.R. (3d) 642, at 649 (F.C.T.D.); Re Kelly (1979), 96 D.L.R. (3d) 470 (F.C.T.D.).]
[4] I concur with the defendant's arguments that the Court has jurisdiction under Rule 4 of the Federal Court Rules (1998), and its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss peremptorily an application which has no chance of success. [See David Bull Laboratories v. Pharmacia, [1995] 1 F.C. 588.]
[5] In the case at bar, the plaintiff's notice of application was filed after the appeal deadline specified in the Act, and consequently I find that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear the application.
[6] For these reasons, the motion will be allowed.
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The motion is allowed;
2. The notice of application filed by the plaintiff on December 4, 2001, is peremptorily struck out;
3. The whole without costs.
"Edmond P. Blanchard"
Judge
Certified true translation
Suzanne M. Gauthier, C. Tr., LL.L.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT No.: T-2137-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Kamal Moghrabi v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
WRITTEN MOTION DECIDED WITHOUT APPEARANCE BY PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER BY: Blanchard J.
DATED: April 12, 2002
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
François Joyal for the defendant
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Barchichat & Associés for the plaintiff
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the defendant
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario