Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content




Date: 20000906


Docket: IMM-334-00


BETWEEN:


A.B.Z.


Applicant



- and -




THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION


Respondent



     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

GILES A.S.P.

[1]      The motion before me seeks a confidentiality order. The situation, if it is as implied, could result in irreparable harm to A.B.Z., if this file is not ordered to be confidential and if all documents presently in it or in future filed in it save for this order are not placed in sealed envelopes.

[2]      Some of the evidence presented with the motion before me is not admissible because it is said to be the subject of a confidentiality order in an other file and apparently should not have been made public by filing copies of it in this file.

[3]      In order to reduce the possible harm done by the apparent breach of the confidentiality order in the other file I am going to order this file sealed for 6 weeks to enable the necessary steps to be taken to obtain a permanent confidentiality order in this file and will also order that in any event, the affidavit of Esther Fiallos sworn the 4th of August, 2000 and all exhibits thereto are to be taken from the file and returned to counsel.

     ORDER

[4]      The affidavit of Esther Fiallos sworn the 4th of August, 2000 and all exhibits thereto are to be returned to applicant's counsel. All copies of such affidavit are subject to this confidentiality order as well as to any other confidentiality order. This file is to be confidential until October 20th, 2000. All documents presently filed in it and all documents in future filed in it until such date shall be placed in sealed envelopes which indicate the generic nature of the content and the existence of this order.

[5]      The motion for confidentiality filed August 9th, 2000 is dismissed with leave to re-apply in writing by September 20th, 2000.

[6]      The respondent shall have until October 2nd, 2000 to file a respondent's record. There should then be 4 days thereafter for serving and filing of a reply.

                        

                                 "Peter A.K. Giles"

     A.S.P.

Toronto, Ontario

September 6, 2000



FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA

                         Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record

                                                

COURT NO:                          IMM-334-00
STYLE OF CAUSE:                      A.B.Z.

                             - and -


                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                             AND IMMIGRATION

CONSIDERED AT TORONTO, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULE 369

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER BY:                      GILES A.S.P.
DATED:                          WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2000

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:              Mr. Lorne Waldman

                                 For the Applicant

                             Mr. Stephen H. Gold

                                 For the Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:              JACKMAN, WALDMAN & ASSOCIATES

                             Barrister & Solicitor

                             281 Eglinton Avenue East

                             Toronto, Ontario

                             M4P 1L3

        

                                 For the Applicant

                             Morris Rosenberg

                             Deputy Attorney General of Canada

                                 For the Respondent                                 

                                        

                             FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA


                                 Date: 20000906

                        

          Docket: IMM-334-00

                             Between:

                            



                             A.B.Z.

Applicant


                             - and -




                             THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

                             AND IMMIGRATION


Respondent


                            

        

                             REASONS FOR ORDER

                             AND ORDER

                            

    

    

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.