Frenkel et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (1998) 148 F.T.R. 8 (TD)

• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 19, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1998), 148 F.T.R. 8 (TD)

Frenkel v. Can. (M.C.I.) (1998), 148 F.T.R. 8 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.031

Orna Frenkel, Imanuel Babakhanin, Khezael Babakhanin, Yaezer Babakhanin and Yakov Shanin Meshikhi (applicants) v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-4428-97)

Indexed As: Frenkel et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Hargrave, Prothonotary

January 26, 1998.

Summary:

McGillis, J., dismissed the applicants' application for leave to review a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The applicants brought a motion for an extension of time within which to apply to McGillis, J., for a reconsideration of her decision pursuant to Federal Court Rule 337(5)(b).

A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the motion.

Courts - Topic 4071

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Practice - Reconsideration of decisions - McGillis, J., dismissed the applicants' application for leave to review a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board because of their failure to file a record - The applicants moved for an extension of time within which to apply to McGillis, J., for a reconsideration of her decision pursuant to Federal Court Rule 337(5)(b) - A Prothonotary of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the motion - Rule 337(5)(b) required that there be an oversight or omission on the part of the court in order to obtain a reconsideration of a final decision - The only oversight was that of the applicants, who failed to see to the filing of their record or to obtain an extension of time within which to file the record - The applicants presented no argument which had any reasonable chance of successfully changing the order dismissing their judicial review application.

Cases Noticed:

Vinogradov et al. v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 77 F.T.R. 296 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Kibale v. Transport Canada (1990), 103 N.R. 387 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Murray v. Public Service Staff Relations Board, [1985] F.C.A.C. 3008-01 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Chin v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 69 F.T.R. 77 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 8].

Boateng v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1990), 112 N.R. 318 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Asbjorn Horgard A/S V. Gibbs/Nortac Industries Ltd. (1987), 16 C.P.R.(3d) 112 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

Williams v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 74 F.T.R. 34 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Sheikh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1990), 112 N.R. 61; 71 D.L.R.(4th) 604 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Huynh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994) 65 F.T.R. 11; 21 Imm. L.R. 18 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Shirwa v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 71 F.T.R. 136; 23 Imm. L.R.(2d) 123 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Drummond v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1996), 112 F.T.R. 33 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 11].

Metodieva v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de l'Immigration (1992), 132 N.R. 38 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Counsel:

Orna Frenkel, applicant, for the applicants;

Barbara Burns, Justice Canada, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

George Thomson, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 19, 1998, before Hargrave, Prothonotary, of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on January 26, 1998.