Date: 19981123
Docket: IMM-4504-98
BETWEEN:
INEY PRIYANTHI FONSEKA
RUWANTHI MANIK S. SEMBUGE DON FONSEKA
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED J.:
[1] This is a very strange motion. The applicants filed a motion returnable for a regular motions day in Toronto, November 23, 1998. That motion seeks an order allowing the filing of an additional affidavit, and the filing of further submissions by the applicants, as well as an order that the proceedings to which they relate be dealt with on an urgent basis.
[2] The proceeding to which the motion relates is an application seeking leave to commence a proceeding for judicial review of the purported refusal of an immigration official to grant the applicants landing. That application was filed on September 3, 1998. The applicants' application record was filed on September 24, 1998. The respondent's application record was filed on October 26, 1998 and the applicants' reply on November 3, 1998. After that date the applicants obtained a copy of a document, an e-mail of July 7, 1998, that they wish to file in support of their application for leave.
[3] Section 82.1 of the Immigration Act sets out the procedure for seeking review before this Court of decisions, orders or matters arising under that Act, and under the rules and regulations. Subsection 82.1(4) states that applications for leave to commence a proceeding for judicial review, unless a judge directs otherwise, shall be disposed of without personal appearance.
[4] The motion before the Court is misconceived. There has been no direction given that the applicants' application is to be treated differently from the applications of others. The request to add additional material to the reply that has already been filed should have been brought in writing pursuant to Rule 369. Then, the request, together with any written reply the respondent might file, would be brought to the attention of the judge who becomes responsible for deciding the leave application.
[5] This motion is strange for another reason. On September 3, 1998, the applicants sought to have their application for leave to commence a proceeding for judicial review dealt with on an expedited basis. On September 4, 1998, Madame Justice McGillis dismissed that motion. No reason has been given in support of a need to have the matter dealt with urgently. The present motion, then, is completely inappropriate if not an abuse of process.
[6] The respondent shall have her costs of the motion on a solicitor-client basis.
"B. Reed"
Judge
TORONTO, ONTARIO
November 23, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: IMM-4504-98
| STYLE OF CAUSE: INEY PRIYANTHI FONSEKA |
RUWANTHI MANIK S. SEMBUGE DON FONSEKA
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND |
IMMIGRATION
DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: REED, J.
DATED: MONDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1998
APPEARANCES: Mr. T. Viresh Fernando
For the Applicants
Ms. Neeta Logsemy
For the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: T. Viresh Fernando
Barristers & Solicitors
481 Univeristy Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2E9
For the Applicants
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 19981123
Docket: IMM-4504-98
Between:
| INEY PRIYANTHI FONSEKA |
RUWANTHI MANIK S. SEMBUGE
DON FONSEKA
Applicant
- and -
| THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP |
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER