Hamida v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 FC 468

• Judge: Locke, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 28, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2015 FC 468;(2015), 477 F.T.R. 314 (FC)

Hamida v. Can. (2015), 477 F.T.R. 314 (FC)

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: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.041

Mehrez Ben Abde Hamida (demandeur) v. Le Ministre de la Sécurité Publique et la Protection Civile (défendeur)

(IMM-4461-13; 2015 CF 468; 2015 FC 468)

Indexed As: Hamida v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)

Federal Court

Locke, J.

April 15, 2015.

Summary:

The applicant applied under s. 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness which refused to stay the applicant's deportation in accordance with the recommendations of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

The Federal Court dismissed the application as moot. The court made no order as to costs. The court held that the matter did not raise any serious question of general importance.

Administrative Law - Topic 571

The hearing and decision - Decision of the tribunal - Academic or moot matters - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3302 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3302

Judicial review - General - Bars - Alternate remedy - The applicant applied under s. 72(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness which refused to stay the applicant's deportation in accordance with the recommendations of the Human Rights Committee (HRC) of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - The Federal Court dismissed the application as moot - As the applicant had already succeeded on two other judicial review applications, he was now entitled to a new pre-removal risk assessment and a new assessment on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in light of Ezokola v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013 S.C.C.) - Furthermore, the applicant could remain in Canada and had not exhausted his internal remedies - Further, it would not be appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion in this case - Considering the importance of judicial economy and being sensitive to the effectiveness or efficacy of judicial functions, the practical effect would be to render a legal opinion on the Minister's obligation to make a decision that would comply with the HRC's recommendations.

Administrative Law - Topic 7096

Judicial review - Bars - Discretionary bars - Existence of convenient or adequate alternative remedy - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3302 ].

Aliens - Topic 1800

Exclusion and expulsion - Deportation and exclusion of persons in Canada - Deportation or removal order - Stay or deferral of (incl. termination of stay) - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3302 ].

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3302 ].

Cases Noticed:

Hamida v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 466 F.T.R. 112; 2014 FC 998, refd to. [para. 5].

Ezokola v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] 2 S.C.R. 678; 447 N.R. 254; 2013 SCC 40, refd to. [para. 5].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82, refd to. [para. 23].

Escobar Rosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 471 F.T.R. 214; 2014 FC 1234, refd to. [para. 25].

Marleau v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 955; 2011 FC 1149, refd to. [para. 25].

Counsel:

Stewart Istvanffy, for the applicant;

Sherry Rafai Far, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Law Office of Stewart Istvanffy, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Montreal, Quebec, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on January 28, 2015, by Locke, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on April 15, 2015.