James v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, (1991) 45 F.T.R. 139 (TD)

• Judge: Rouleau, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 03, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 45 F.T.R. 139 (TD)

James v. MEI (1991), 45 F.T.R. 139 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

James (plaintiff/applicant) v. The Minister of Employment and Immigration and Her Majesty the Queen (defendants/respondents)

(T-769-91)

Indexed As: James v. Minister of Employment and Immigration

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Rouleau, J.

May 23, 1991.

Summary:

Prior to the start of the alien's credible basis hearing, the tribunal ruled that it had jurisdiction under s. 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to deal with constitutional ques­tions raised, but would do so at the con­clusion of the credible basis hearing. The alien commenced an action against the Minister of Employment and Immigration, alleging that there was a reasonable appre­hension of bias in the tribunal and her rights under ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter were infringed due to the unreasonable delay in processing her claim. She applied for an interlocutory injunction preventing immigra­tion officials from proceeding with her credible basis hearing pending the outcome of her action.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the injunction application.

Aliens - Topic 1323.4

Admission - Refugees - Credible basis for claim - Credible basis hearing - [See Injunctions - Topic 1610 ].

Injunctions - Topic 1610

Interlocutory of interim injunctions - Circumstances when injunction will not be granted - Prior to commencement of a credible basis hearing, the tribunal ruled that it had jurisdiction to deal with consti­tutional questions, but would do so at the conclusion of the hearing - The alien involved sued the Crown, alleging bias and Charter violations - The alien sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent immi­gration officials from proceeding with the hearing pending the outcome of her action - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, refused to grant the injunction because the application was premature and it was in the public interest that the statu­tory scheme proceed.

Cases Noticed:

Metropolitan Stores MTS Ltd. et al. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241; 18 C.P.C.(2d) 273; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 5 et seq.].

Toth v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration, [1989] 1 F.C. 535; 86 N.R. 302; 6 Imm.L.R.(2d) 123 (F.C.A.), dist. [paras. 5, 17].

American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., [1975] 1 All E.R. 504; [1975] A.C. 396, refd to. [para. 6].

Mohammad (M.M.I.) v. Minister of Em­ployment and Immigration (1988), 91 N.R. 121; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 321 (F.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 10, 11].

Sethi v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1988), 87 N.R. 389 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

Consolidated Bathurst Packaging Ltd. v. International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-69 and Labour Relations Board (Ont.), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 282; 105 N.R. 161; 38 O.A.C. 321; 68 D.L.R.(4th) 524, refd to. [para. 12].

Kodellas and Tripolis Foods Ltd. v. Human Rights Commission (Sask.), Wahn and Glute (1986), 52 Sask.R. 139; 34 D.L.R.(4th) 30 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 16].

Yhap v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1990] 1 F.C. 722; 34 F.T.R. 26; 9 Imm. L.R.(2d) 69, dist. [para. 17].

Kravets v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 F.C. 434 (F.C.A.), dist. [para. 17].

Brar v. Minister of Employment and Im­migration (1989), 30 F.T.R. 284 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Canada v. Fishing Vessel Owners' Associ­ation of B.C., [1985] 1 F.C. 791; 61 N.R. 128 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

YRI-York Limited et al. v. Canada (At­torney General) et al. (1988), 83 N.R. 195 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 3]; sect. 11(b) [para. 8]; sect. 12 [para. 3].

Constitution Act, 1982, sect. 52 [para. 2].

Public Service Employment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-32, generally [para. 10].

Counsel:

Barbara Jackman and Steven Barrett, for the plaintiff/applicant;

Roslyn Levine, Urszula Kaczmarcyk and Deidre Rice, for the defen­dants/respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

Jackman, Joseph & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff/applicant;

Sack, Gold, Blatt, Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the plaintiff/applicant;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the defendants/respondents.

This application was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on May 3, 1991, before Rouleau, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, who delivered the following decision on May 23, 1991.