Chowdhury v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Chowdhury v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court Decisions
Date
2002-07-12
Neutral citation
2002 FCT 786
File numbers
IMM-42-01
Decision Content
Date: 20020712
Court File No.: IMM-42-01
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 786
Ottawa, Ontario, this 12th day of July, 2002
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BLANCHARD
BETWEEN:
DRITHIMAN CHOWDHURY
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The applicant applies by motion in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, (the "Rules") filed on April 12, 2002, for reconsideration and/or variation of my order of April 2, 2002, dismissing an application for judicial review in the within matter.
[2] I have considered the grounds advanced by the applicant and the written submissions of both parties on this motion.
[3] In dismissing the application for judicial review the Court rendered a final decision. It is only in the narrowest of circumstances that the Rules allow a final decision be subject to further review.
[4] Rule 397 contemplates a reconsideration if the order does not accord with any reasons given for it, or because of an oversight or an accidental omission on the part of the Court. Such mistakes can be corrected at any time by the Court.
[5] Rule 399(2(a) provides that a Court may on motion vary or set aside an order by reason of a matter that arose or was discovered subsequent to the making of the order.
[6] At paragraph 22 of my reasons of April 2, 2002, I stated:
I have carefully considered the applicant's arguments and I have reviewed each and every one of the negative plausibility and credibility findings of the CRDD. The applicant has not satisfied me that the CRDD's assessments are either perverse, capricious or manifestly unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.
[7] The CRDD erred in finding, at page 3, paragraph 4 of its reasons, that "...the police did not act for fear of reprisals." Consequently, the CRDD erred in concluding that the applicant's explanations in his Personal Information Form (PIF) and his testimony were contradictory. This error of the CRDD, although not mentioned in my reasons, was not consequential to my decision, and I am still of that view.
[8] I am satisfied that the order does accord with the reasons given for it and that no matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted.
[9] Any judge having made an order has exhausted his authority to deal with the application on its merits. He may not thereafter reconsider the matter so disposed of except within the very narrow exceptions provided by Rules 397 and 399. Apart from those, the judge has no authority to vary his order. No other judge, except one sitting on an appeal from the original judgment, has authority to vary an order. If it were otherwise, there would be no certainty in the law's application, and no end to litigation.
[10] For the above reasons, the motion will be dismissed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The motion is dismissed.
"Edmond P. Blanchard"
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-42-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: Drithiman Chowdhury v. MCI
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: Rule 369
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: BLANCHARD J.
DATED: July 12, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Me Johanne Doyon FOR APPLICANT
Me Daniel Latulippe FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Doyon & Montbriand FOR APPLICANT
6337 Saint-Denis Street
Montréal, Québec H2S 2R8
Morris Rosenberg FOR RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice, Québec Regional Office
200 René-Lévesque Blvd. West
East Tower, 5th Floor
Montréal, Québec H2Z 1X4