Federal Court Decisions

 

Date: 20090608

Docket: IMM-2700-08

Citation: 2009 FC 591

Ottawa, Ontario, June 8, 2009

PRESENT:     The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly

 

 

BETWEEN:

SAQIB HAMEED &

ADEELA BASHIR

Applicants

and

 

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

 

SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS AND ORDER

 

[1]               Having issued a judgment allowing Mr. Hameed’s application for judicial review on May 21, 2009, I invited counsel to make submissions on the issues of certification of a question of general importance and costs.

I.                    Potential Questions:

[2]               Counsel for Mr. Hameed submits that no questions of general importance arise. Counsel for the Minister proposes the following three questions:

 

1.                  Does the Federal Court have the jurisdiction under s. 18.1(3)(b) of the Federal Courts Act to direct the Minister to grant an individual a specified number of points under the Skilled Worker category of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations?

2.                  Does the visa officer have the authority under s. 78 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations to determine what constitutes “full-time” or “full-time equivalent” enrolment in a program of study?

3.                  Does the Federal Court have the authority to substitute its own assessment of foreign documentation for that of the visa officer?

[3]               In respect of Question 1, counsel’s written submissions make clear that the Court does have the jurisdiction to issue directions under s. 18.1(3)(b). However, she questions whether the Court ought to have done so in this case. In my view, that does not amount to a question of general importance. I would also point out that the Court clearly has the authority under s. 18.1(3)(a) to make a decision that the officer ought to have made. In Mr. Hameed’s case, the Court simply wished to ensure that the assessment of his educational credentials did not give rise to yet a third application for judicial review.

[4]               In respect of Question 2, it is obvious that visa officers have the authority to make decisions under s. 78 of the Regulations. However, those decisions are amenable to judicial review. This is not a question of general importance.

[5]               In respect of Question 3, again it is obvious that the Court, on judicial review, must consider the reasonableness of an officer’s assessment of the evidence. This is not a question of general importance.

 

II.           Costs:

 

[6]               Counsel for the Minister submits that no special reasons justify an award of costs in this case. Counsel for Mr. Hameed argues that special reasons arise from the fact that Mr. Hameed had to come to the court twice on essentially the same question.

[7]               In my reasons for judgment, I made clear that the issues arising in the two judicial reviews were somewhat different. In my view, therefore, the circumstances do not warrant an award of costs. However, the circumstances did merit the particular order that I issued directing the assessment of Mr. Hameed’s educational credentials. In light of that order, there will be no order as to costs.

ORDER

 

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1.                  No question of general importance is stated.

2.                  There is no order as to costs.

 

 

 

“James W. O’Reilly”

FEDERAL COURT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                          IMM-2700-08

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          SAQIB HAMEED AND ADEELA BASHIR v. MCI

 

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                    Toronto, Ontario

 

DATE OF HEARING:                      January 14, 2009

 

SUPPLEMENTAL REASONS

FOR ORDER:                                   O’REILLY J.

 

DATED:                                             June 8, 2009

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

David Orman	FOR THE APPLICANTS
Judy Michaely	FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

DAVID ORMAN Toronto, Ontario	FOR THE APPLICANTS
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada	FOR THE RESPONDENT