Felipa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2011) 422 N.R. 288 (FCA)

• Judge: Sharlow, Dawson and Stratas, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 07, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2011), 422 N.R. 288 (FCA);2011 FCA 272

Felipa v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2011), 422 N.R. 288 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2011] N.R. TBEd. OC.036

Luis Alberto Felipa (appellant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(A-37-10; 2011 FCA 272; 2011 CAF 272)

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

Federal Court of Appeal

Sharlow, Dawson and Stratas, JJ.A.

October 3, 2011.

Summary:

An applicant in judicial review proceedings involving immigration issues, requested an adjournment on the ground that a person who was beyond 75 years of age could not act as a deputy judge of the Federal Court. An adjournment was granted and the applicant pursued a motion raising two principal questions: "a. Is the Federal Court a superior court within the meaning of s. 99(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867? and b. Does s. 8(2) of the Federal Courts Act preclude a person over 75 years of age from acting as a deputy judge of the Federal Court?" Section 99(2) of the Constitution Act, 1867, provided that a judge of a superior court ceased to hold office upon reaching age 75. Section 8(2) of the Federal Courts Act provided that a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal Court ceased to hold office on becoming 75 years old.

The Federal Court, in a decision reported 357 F.T.R. 253, dismissed the applicant's motion. The court held that the Federal Court was not a superior court within the meaning of s. 99(2). Further, s. 8(2) did not preclude a person over age 75 from acting as a deputy judge of the Federal Court. Therefore a former judge of a superior court, who was over the age of 75, could be requested to act as deputy judge of the Federal Court. The applicant appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal, Stratas, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal, set aside the order below and allowed the applicant's motion. The court held that according to the interpretation of the legislation adopted by the Federal Court, a judge of a superior court could cease to hold office on his or her 75th birthday and then immediately be appointed as a deputy judge to exercise all of the powers of a judge of the Federal Court. In the view of the majority, that result was so inconsistent with the legislative scheme that the statutory interpretation upon which it was based could not stand. In the result, the court declared that the Chief Justice of the Federal Court did not have the authority under s. 10(1.1) of the Federal Courts Act to request that a retired judge of a superior court act as a deputy judge of the Federal Court after attaining the age of 75.

Constitutional Law - Topic 8602.1

Judicial power - Appointment of judges - Federal court judges - [See Courts - Topic 248 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 8656

Judges (incl. justices of the peace) - Tenure and retirement - [See Courts - Topic 248 ].

Courts - Topic 248

Judges - Appointment - Federal Court (incl. appointment of deputy judges by Chief Justice) - At issue was whether a former judge of a superior court who was over the age of 75 could be requested by the Chief Justice to act as a deputy judge of the Federal Court - The Federal Court of Appeal held that this question could be answered by looking to the scope of the authority of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court under s. 10(1.1) of the Federal Courts Act - That section provided that "... any judge of a superior, county or district court in Canada, and any person who has held office as a judge of a superior, county or district court in Canada, may, at the request of the Chief Justice of the Federal Court ..., act as a judge of the Federal Court, and while so acting has all the powers of a judge of that court and shall be referred to as a deputy judge of that court" - The Court of Appeal, applying a contextual approach to statutory interpretation, held that the Chief Justice did not have the authority under s. 10(1.1) to request that a retired judge of a superior court act as a deputy judge of the Federal Court after attaining the age of 75 - See paragraphs 33 to 83.

Courts - Topic 480

Judges - Removal and retirement - Retirement age - [See Courts - Topic 248 ].

Statutes - Topic 502

Interpretation - General principles - Intention of Parliament or legislature - [See Statutes - Topic 2603 ].

Statutes - Topic 2407

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - By context - [See Statutes - Topic 2603 ].

Statutes - Topic 2601

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - General principles - [See Statutes - Topic 2603 ].

Statutes - Topic 2603

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - Intention from whole of section or statute - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the contextual approach to statutory interpretation, and in particular the ascertainment of legislative intent - See paragraphs 25 to 32 - The court stated, inter alia, that "Inherent in the contextual approach to statutory interpretation is the understanding that the grammatical and ordinary sense of a provision is not determinative of its meaning. As Francis Bennion wrote, '[t]he test is What did Parliament mean by these words? rather than What did Parliament mean in the abstract?' ... A court must consider the total context of the provision to be interpreted 'no matter how plain the disposition may seem upon initial reading' ... From the text and this wider context the interpreting court aims to ascertain legislative intent. Legislative intent is '[t]he most significant element of this analysis'" ..." - See paragraph 30.

Cases Noticed:

Charkaoui, Re (2004), 328 N.R. 201; 2004 FCA 421, refd to. [para. 11].

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391; 218 N.R. 81, refd to. [para. 11].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 18].

Ruby v. Royal Canadian Mounted Police et al., [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3; 295 N.R. 353; 2002 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 25].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867; 275 N.R. 201; 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304; 618 A.P.R. 304; 2001 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 26].

Minister of National Revenue v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Co., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601; 340 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 27].

Celgene Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 3; 410 N.R. 127; 2011 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 29].

Information Commissioner (Can.) v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) (2011), 416 N.R. 105; 2011 SCC 25, refd to. [paras. 28, 88].

Montreal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141; 340 N.R. 305; 2005 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 29].

ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Energy and Utilities Board (Alta.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 140; 344 N.R. 293; 380 A.R. 1; 363 W.A.C. 1; 2006 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Monney (I.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 652; 237 N.R. 157; 119 O.A.C. 272, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; Ex parte Spath Holme Ltd., [2001] 2 A.C. 349 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 31].

Canada 3000 Inc. (Bankrupt), Re, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 865; 349 N.R. 1; 212 O.A.C. 338; 2006 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 46].

Addy v. Canada, [1985] 2 F.C. 452 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Perka, Nelson, Hines and Johnson, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232; 55 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 71].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [paras. 78, 151].

Ontario (Attorney General) v. Canada (Attorney General), [1947] A.C. 127 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 79].

R. v. Daoust (C.) et al., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 217; 316 N.R. 203; 2004 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 102].

Steel v. Canada (Attorney General) (2011), 418 N.R. 327; 2011 FCA 153, refd to. [para. 141].

Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 150].

Société des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick Inc. and Association de conseillers scolaires francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick v. Minority Language School Board No. 50 and Association of Parents for Fairness in Education, Grand Falls District 50 Branch, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 549; 66 N.R. 173; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 271; 177 A.P.R. 271, refd to. [para. 150].

Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 151].

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 158].

Reference Re Farm Products Marketing Act (Ont.), [1957] S.C.R. 198, refd to. [para. 158].

Ell et al. v. Alberta, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 857; 306 N.R. 1; 330 A.R. 201; 299 W.A.C. 232; 2003 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 170].

R. v. Valente, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 673; 64 N.R. 1; 14 O.A.C. 79, refd to. [para. 171].

Beauregard v. Canada, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 56; 70 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 171].

R. v. Teskey (L.M.), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 267; 364 N.R. 164; 412 A.R. 361; 404 W.A.C. 361; 2007 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 176].

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band, [2003] 2 S.C.R. 259; 309 N.R. 201; 2003 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 176].

Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Justice) - see Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick.

Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405; 282 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 299; 636 A.P.R. 299; 2002 SCC 13, refd to. [para. 177].

Leblanc v. R., 2011 CMAC 2, refd to. [para. 178].

Statutes Noticed:

Constitution Act, 1867, sect. 99(1), sect. 99(2) [para. 14].

Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, sect. 5.3 [para. 35]; sect. 8(2) [para. 15]; sect. 10(1.1) [para. 21].

Authors and Works Noticed:

2006 Oliver Wendell Holmes Lecture: Note: Congressional Restrictions on the Presidents Appointment Power and the Role Of Longstanding Practice in Constitutional Interpretation (2007), 120 Harv. L. Rev. 1914, generally [para. 160].

Bastarache, Michel, The Law of Bilingual Interpretation (2008), pp. 93 to 120 [para. 102].

Bennion, Francis Alan Roscoe, Statutory Interpretation (5th Ed. 2008), p. 480 [para. 30].

Burnette, Jason T., Eyes on Their Own Paper: Practical Construction in Constitutional Interpretation (2004-2005), 39 Ga. L. Rev. 1065, generally [para. 160].

Bushnell, Ian., The Federal Court of Canada: A History, 1875-1992 (1997), pp. 97, 130, 193, 194 [para. 54].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (March 10, 1927), p. 1082 [para. 46].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates (March 25, 1927), pp. 1556 [paras. 47]; 1562 [para. 48].

Lederman, W.R., The Independence of the Judiciary (1956), 34 Can. Bar Rev. 1139, generally [para. 148].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), pp. 93 to 120 [para. 102]; 146, 147 [para. 71]; 163 [para. 25]; 612 [para. 127].

Counsel:

Rocco Galati, for the appellant;

Gina M. Scarcella and Jamie Todd, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on March 7, 2011, before Sharlow, Dawson and Stratas, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The judgment of the court was delivered in Ottawa, Ontario, on October 3, 2011, including the following opinions:

Sharlow and Dawson, JJ.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 83;

Stratas, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 84 to 182.