Citation: 2006 FC 995
Vancouver, British Columbia, August 17, 2006
PRESENT: Roger R. Lafrenière, Esquire
Prothonotary
BETWEEN:
JASPAL SINGH PADDA
and GURPREET SINGH PADDA
Applicants
and
MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] By motion dated August 9, 2006 the Applicants seek an extension of time for the filing of the Applicants’ Record to August 25, 2006.
[2] This is the Applicants’ second motion for an extension of time within which to perfect the Applicants’ Record in support of their application for leave and for judicial review. The Respondent does not oppose an extension of time, albeit for a shorter period than that requested by the Applicants. Taking into account that the Applicants have provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, that they moved promptly for an extension of time and appear to have maintained a continued intention to proceed with the application for leave, I consider it in the interests of justice to grant the motion as requested.
[3] There remains, however, a procedural issue that needs to be addressed. Rather than bringing their motion in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules (FCR), as is the norm in immigration leave applications, the Applicants elected to proceed orally, making their motion returnable at the General Sittings in Vancouver. Such practice should, in my view, be discouraged.
[4] Although I am satisfied that the Applicants had nothing to gain by making their motion returnable at the General Sittings, rather than proceeding in writing, one cannot ignore that delays in processing claims for refugee protection generally work to the advantage of persons who are not genuine refugees. In order to minimize abuses, Parliament made changes to the refugee determination process to increase its effectiveness and integrity. The same applies to leave applications in this Court.
[5] The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) has streamlined the judicial review process and increased its effectiveness and the consistency of its application. Sections 72 to 75 of the IRPA and the Federal Courts Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, which govern judicial review in immigration matters, impose strict deadlines for taking the necessary steps to obtain leave and provide that applications for leave be made, and ultimately disposed of, in writing.
[6] To allow an applicant to obtain an oral hearing for an interlocutory motion in a leave application that is intended to be conducted entirely in writing appears antithetical to the statutory and regulatory objectives of efficiency and expediency. It could easily be abused by an unscrupulous applicant who could obtain an extended stay of removal pending determination of the application for leave by making his or her motion for extension of time returnable in the distant future.
[7] In the circumstances, the Registry should, as a rule, seek directions from the Court with respect to any motion in an immigration leave application that is not brought in writing pursuant to Rule 369 of the FCR.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that
1. The Applicants are granted a further extension of time until August 25, 2006 to serve and file the Applicants’ Record.
2. The time for taking subsequent steps in the proceeding is extended to run from the date of service of the Applicants’ Record on the Respondent.
“Roger R. Lafrenière”
Prothonotary
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-2662-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: Jaspal Singh Padda et al. v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: August 14, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER: LAFRENIÈRE P.
APPEARANCES:
|
Martin Bauer
|
|
|
Scott Nesbitt
|
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Bauer & Company Barristers & Solicitors Vancouver, British Columbia
|
|
|
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT |