Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content






Date: 20000908


Docket: IMM-2569-00



BETWEEN:

     EVERALD CAMPBELL

     Applicant

     - and -



     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

     Respondent



     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

BLAIS J.


[1]      This is a motion for varying or setting aside the order of the Honourable Justice Teitelbaum, rendered on July 27, 2000.

[2]      In his decision, Justice Teitelbaum said:

The affidavit of Tammy Clark gives no valid reason as to why the Applicant's record could not have been perfected within the legal delays.
The fact that the Applicant failed to sign an affidavit and return it to his legal Counsel is not a reason to grant an extension of time.
My emphasis.

[3]      Rule 399.2(a) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 says:

(2) On motion, the Court may set aside or vary an order

(a) by reason of a matter that arose or was discovered subsequent to the making of the order;


(My emphasis)     

(2) La Cour peut, sur requête, annuler ou modifier une ordonnance dans l'un ou l'autre des cas suivants:

(a) des faits nouveaux sont survenus ou ont été découverts après que l'ordonnance a été rendue;

[4]      In his motion record, the applicant says at paragraph 11:

It was only upon receiving the Court Order that it came to attention of the applicant and the solicitors that the Court viewed there to be insufficient information to explain why the Affidavit of the applicant could not be returned within the prescribed time limit.

[5]      As counsel for the respondent argues at paragraph 12 of his motion record:

The evidence tendered in support of this application provides no information that was unknown to the Applicant prior to the making of Mr. Justice Teitelbaum's order.

[6]      When the applicant is seeking reconsideration of an order under Rule 399, that order itself cannot be seen as a matter arising subsequent to its own making.

[7]      An applicant must bring all the evidence he has in the first place.

[8]      The applicant failed to convince me that this is a situation where Rule 399.2(a) could apply.

[9]      For these reasons, this motion to set aside or vary the order of Justice Teitelbaum is dismissed.





                         Pierre Blais

                         Judge


OTTAWA, ONTARIO

September 8, 2000

 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.