Cabrera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2010) 372 F.T.R. 211 (FC)

• Judge: Russell, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 01, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2010), 372 F.T.R. 211 (FC);2010 FC 709

Cabrera v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2010), 372 F.T.R. 211 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.001

Maria Teresa Cabrera (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-4185-09; 2010 FC 709)

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

Federal Court

Russell, J.

June 29, 2010.

Summary:

Cabrera applied for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Division (ID) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Board which resulted in an exclusion order being issued against Cabrera under s. 40(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Federal Court allowed the application and remitted the matter to a differently constituted panel of the ID.

Administrative Law - Topic 2484

Natural justice - Procedure - At hearing - Adjournments - [See Aliens - Topic 4084 ].

Aliens - Topic 4084

Practice - Hearings - Adjournments or postponements - An inadmissibility report under s. 44(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act issued against Cabrera - Cabrera filed a Notice of Constitutional Question (NCQ) - The timing of this filing was not in accordance with the notice requirements - Cabrera sought an adjournment at the hearing in order to be able to comply with the NCQ requirements - The Immigration Division (ID) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Board refused the adjournment request and the admissibility hearing proceeded - The ID issued an exclusion order against Cabrera pursuant to s. 40(1)(a) of the Act for allegedly misrepresenting material facts in her application for permanent residence - Cabrera applied for judicial review, asserting that her right to procedural fairness was breached because of the ID's refusal to grant an adjournment to allow her to provide proper notice of a constitutional question - The Federal Court allowed the application - The ID was obliged to consider Cabrera's adjournment request in accordance with s. 43 of the Immigration Division Rules - The "relevant factors" in this case were: a. the length of time for which the adjournment was being sought was very short; b. the adjournment would have had no detrimental effect on the immigration system; c. the adjournment would not have needlessly delayed, impeded or paralyzed the conduct of the inquiry; d. Cabrera was not to blame for any delay; e. any adjournment would not have resulted in any prejudice to the Minister or unreasonably delay the proceedings, while the failure to grant the adjournment prevented Cabrera from raising her constitutional and Charter arguments, and the fact of her non-compliance with the time limits became a significant aspect of the decision - The ID had some reasons for refusing the request but there were other factors that did not appear to have been considered - The ID did not properly address s. 43 of the Immigration Division Rules and its decision was incorrect.

Cases Noticed:

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 17].

Weekes v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 213; 71 Imm. L.R.(3d) 4; 2008 FC 293, refd to. [para. 18].

Dhaliwal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2010] F.T.R. Uned. 5; 2010 FC 7, refd to. [para. 18].

Aguebor v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (1993), 160 N.R. 315 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Calles v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1990), 131 N.R. 69 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Cardinal and Oswald v. Kent Institution (Director), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643; 63 N.R. 353, refd to. [para. 24].

United States of America v. Taylor (2003), 182 B.C.A.C. 83; 300 W.A.C. 83; 2003 BCCA 250, refd to. [para. 25].

Thalang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 478; 2007 FC 743, refd to. [para. 25].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Kapp (J.M.) et al. (2008), 376 N.R. 1; 256 B.C.A.C. 75; 431 W.A.C. 75; 2008 SCC 41, refd to. [para. 33].

Ly (Q.H.) v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] F.T.R. Uned. 706; 2003 FC 1184, refd to. [para. 34].

Mohammed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1997] 3 F.C. 299; 130 F.T.R. 294 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 39].

Baro v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 877; 2007 FC 1299, refd to. [para. 39].

Khan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2008] F.T.R. Uned. 381; 2008 FC 512, refd to. [para. 40].

Bekker v. Minister of National Revenue (2004), 323 N.R. 195; 2004 FCA 186, refd to. [para. 43].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301; 2003 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 44].

Haj Khalil et al. v. Canada (2007), 317 F.T.R. 32; 2007 FC 923, refd to. [para. 44].

Auton et al. v. British Columbia (Minister of Health) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 657; 327 N.R. 1; 206 B.C.A.C. 1; 338 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 78, refd to. [para. 47].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [para. 49].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 49].

Mercier v. Correctional Service of Canada et al. (2009), 359 F.T.R. 273; 2009 FC 1071, refd to. [para. 51].

Ahmed v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 248 F.T.R. 157 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 54].

Siloch v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1993), 151 N.R. 76 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

Counsel:

Rocco Galati, for the applicant;

Jamie Todd and Hillary Stephenson, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Rocco Galati Law Firm, Professional Corporation, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on April 1, 2010, at Toronto, Ontario, by Russell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 29, 2010.