Arjun v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1999) 179 F.T.R. 287 (TD)

• Judge: Sharlow, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 04, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 179 F.T.R. 287 (TD)

Arjun v. Can. (M.C.I.) (1999), 179 F.T.R. 287 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] F.T.R. TBEd. NO.006

Jainanan Arjun (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-5482-98)

Indexed As: Arjun v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Sharlow, J.

October 4, 1999.

Summary:

Arjun applied for judicial review of a visa officer's decision denying him permanent residence. The application was allowed based on the Crown's concession that Arjun should have been granted an interview where he had received 60 points. Crown counsel later realized that pursu­ant to Regulation 11.1 Arjun would not have been entitled to an interview because he had not received any points for the occupational factor. The Crown moved under Federal Court Rule 397 for recon­sideration of the court's order.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, stated that it doubted whether this was an appropriate case to apply rule 397 as the Crown's arguments were in the nature of an appeal and did not allege any failure by the court to deal with a point that was argued. However, the court held that it was guided by rule 3, which underlined the court's objective to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determina­tion of every proceeding on the merits The court there­fore assumed, without deciding, that the Crown had properly invoked rule 397. The court reconsidered all of the argu­ments made on the merits of the case and held that its earlier order would stand where it found that Arjun had relied on an outdated application kit pro­vided by the Crown in making his applica­tion for permanent resi­dence.

Aliens - Topic 1221

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - General - [See Aliens - Topic 1230 ].

Aliens - Topic 1230

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Duty of officer - Arjun applied for judicial review of a visa officer's decision denying him permanent residence - The application was allowed based on the Crown's concession that Arjun should have been granted an interview where he had received 60 points - Crown counsel later realized that pursu­ant to Regulation 11.1 Arjun would not have been entitled to an interview because he had not received any points for the occupational factor - The Crown moved under Federal Court Rule 397 for recon­sideration of the court's order - The Feder­al Court of Canada, Trial Division, recon­sidered all of the arguments made on the merits of the case and held that its earlier order would stand - The court's decision was based on its finding that Arjun had relied on an outdated application kit pro­vided by the Crown in making his applica­tion for permanent residence and that the visa officer should have noticed the blatant error and taken steps to permit Arjun to correct it - See paragraphs 21 to 22.

Courts - Topic 4071

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Reconsideration of decisions - Arjun applied for judicial review of a visa officer's decision denying him permanent residence - The application was allowed based on the Crown's conces­sion that Arjun should have been granted an interview where he had received 60 points - Crown counsel later realized that pursuant to Regulation 11.1 Arjun would not have been entitled to an interview because he had not received any points for the occupational factor - The Crown moved under Federal Court Rule 397 for reconsideration of the court's order - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that it doubted whether this was an appropriate case to apply rule 397 as the Crown's arguments were in the nature of an appeal and did not allege any failure by the court to deal with a point that was argued - However, the court held that it was guided by rule 3, which underlined the court's objective to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determina­tion of every proceeding on the merits - The court therefore assumed, without deciding, that the Crown had properly invoked rule 397 and stated that it would reconsider all of the arguments made on the merits of the case - See paragraphs 1 to 13.

Cases Noticed:

Jhajj v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration et al., [1995] 2 F.C. 369; 94 F.T.R. 297 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 9].

Counsel:

Bill Wong, for the applicant;

David Tyndale, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Bill Wong, Toronto, Ontario, for the appli­cant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This motion was dealt with in writing without the appearance of parties by Shar­low, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on October 4, 1999.