IMM-3900-96
BETWEEN:
ALI HAMAD
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
JEROME A.C.J.:
Judgment in this matter was rendered on August 29, 1997. In my reasons, I indicated that counsel would have fifteen days to present a question for certification. Counsel for the applicant has submitted the following question:
| Is a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board (Refugee Division) made without jurisdiction where the Board's reasons for decision are written and signed by only one member of the two member panel that heard the case, where no recourse is made to section 63(2) of the Immigration Act and the signing member purports to be making the decision for the resigned member? |
In my view, this question should not be certified.
Subsection 83(1) of the Immigration Act requires that a certified question must be serious and of general importance. The question submitted by the applicant does not meet these criteria because it has already been considered by the Federal Court of Appeal.
The procedure to follow when invoking subsection 63(2) of the Immigration Act was established by the Federal Court of Appeal in Weerasinghe v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1994] 1 F.C. 330. The Court held that the CRDD must satisfy two requirements: it must refer to the subsection; and it must provide a complete statement of the material circumstances on the record to explain why only one member signed the decision.
In the case at bar, the CRDD departed from the above requirements only to the extent that subsection 63(2) was not specifically referred to. However, the CRDD did refer to the case of Garrison v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration) wherein Mr. Justice Muldoon interpreted subsection 63(2). Therefore, it is clear that the CRDD was contemplating the subsection when it explained the reason why its decision was signed by only one member.
I am not satisfied that the applicant has submitted a serious question of general importance nor that the facts of this case allow it to be distinguished from Weerasinghe. As a result, no question will be certified.
O T T A W A
October 9, 1997 "James A. Jerome"
A.C.J.