Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Amado-Cordeiro

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Amado-Cordeiro
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2004-03-22
Neutral citation
2004 FCA 120
File numbers
A-359-03
Decision Content
Date: 20040322
Docket: A-359-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 120
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
MALONE J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
and
LUIS MIGUEL AMADO-CORDEIRO
Respondent
Heard at Calgary, Alberta on March 22, 2004.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Calgary, Alberta on March 22, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SHARLOW J.A.
Date: 20040322
Docket: A-359-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 120
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
MALONE J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
and
LUIS MIGUEL AMADO-CORDEIRO
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Calgary, Alberta, on March 22, 2004)
SHARLOW J.A.
[1] This is an appeal of a decision of the Federal Court, reported asAmado-Cordeiro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.C.J. No. 1087 (QL), granting an application for judicial review of a decision of the Appeal Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board to discontinue Mr. Amado-Cordeiro's appeal from a removal order. The Judge certified the following question:
Does the word "stay" in section 196 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, contemplate a stay that came into effect under the Immigration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-2 as a result of the operation of paragraph 49(1)(b)?
[2] In a recent decision of this Court, that question was answered in the negative: Medovarski v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2004] F.C.J. No. 366 (QL) (F.C.A.). The majority and dissenting reasons in that case, as well as numerous decisions of the Federal Court that reached the same conclusion as the dissent, disclose a debate about a difficult question of statutory interpretation, involving both the English and French versions of the relevant statutory provisions.
[3] This Court has adopted the principle that it will not overrule its own prior decisions in the absence of manifest error: Miller v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] F.C.J. No. 1375 (QL), (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 149, 293 N.R. 391 (F.C.A.); leave to appeal denied, [2002] S.C.C.A. No. 505 (QL). We are all of the view that there is no such error in Medovarski.
[4] For that reason, this appeal will be allowed. The answer to the certified question is no.
"Karen R. Sharlow"
J. A.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-359-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
v. Luis Miguel Amado-Cordeiro
PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta
DATE OF HEARING: March 22, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT DELIVERED
FROM THE BENCH BY : Sharlow, J.A.
DATED: March 22, 2004
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Tracy J. King FOR APPELLANT
Mr. Edward Washington FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris A. Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR APPELLANT
Brunnen Law Offices FOR RESPONDENT
Calgary, Alberta