Kozel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 593

JudgeBoswell, J.
CourtFederal Court (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 12, 2015
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations2015 FC 593;(2015), 480 F.T.R. 252 (FC)

Kozel v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2015), 480 F.T.R. 252 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.030

Maxim Kozel (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-4199-13; 2015 FC 593)

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

Federal Court

Boswell, J.

May 8, 2015.

Summary:

Kozel, a Russian citizen, applied for a permanent resident visa as a member of the entrepreneur class in late 2006. His application was completed on September 15, 2008. Although a positive selection decision was entered into the Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System on November 26, 2008, the next stage took several years. Kozel applied for judicial review of the Officer's refusal of his application for a permanent resident visa in a letter dated May 31, 2013.

The Federal Court dismissed the application because it had been rendered moot by s. 87.5 of the Immigration and Refugee Act, which came into force on June 19, 2014.

Aliens - Topic 1213

Admission - Immigrants - Entrepreneurs and investors - Kozel, a Russian citizen, applied for a permanent resident visa as a member of the entrepreneur class in late 2006 - His application was completed on September 15, 2008 - Although a positive selection decision was entered into the Computer Assisted Immigration Processing System on November 26, 2008, the next stage took several years - Kozel applied for judicial review of the Officer's refusal of his application for a permanent resident visa in a letter dated May 31, 2013 - The Federal Court dismissed the application because it had been rendered moot by s. 87.5 of the Immigration and Refugee Act, which came into force on June 19, 2014 - Section 87.5 terminated any application by a foreign national for a permanent resident visa as a member of the prescribed class of investors or of entrepreneurs if, before February 11, 2014, an officer had not established whether an applicant met the selection criteria and other requirements applicable to the class in question - The court stated that "it is not a question of whether the Court's ability to order a remedy, if need be, has been precluded or limited by section 87.5, but, rather, a question of whether the remedy requested by the Applicant could have any practical effect. In my view, the Applicant's request that the Officer's decision be set aside and the matter returned for determination by a different visa officer should be denied because, even if the Court granted this request, his visa application would be terminated by section 87.5." - See paragraphs 5 to 22.

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - [See Aliens - Topic 1213 ].

Cases Noticed:

Zhu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2013), 427 F.T.R. 239; 2013 FC 155, dist. [para. 9].

Tabingo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2014), 462 N.R. 124; 377 D.L.R.(4th) 151; 2014 FCA 191, refd to. [para. 10].

Austria v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) - see Tabingo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration).

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82; 57 D.L.R.(4th) 231, refd to. [para. 15].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect 87.4 [para. 9]; sect. 87.5(1), sect. 87.5(2), sect. 87.5(3), sect. 87.5(7) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Hart A. Kaminker, for the applicant;

Nur Muhammed-Ally, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Kaminker Weinstock Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 12, 2015, by Boswell, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 8, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • GCT Canada Limited Partnership v. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, 2022 FC 1109
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • July 26, 2022
    ...in 0769449 BC Ltd (Kimberly Transport) v Vancouver Fraser (Port Authority), 2016 FC 645, and Kozel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 593, cited by the VFPA, a situation whereby the change in the legislation transferred the power to grant licences to access the Port of Vancouve......
  • Dhaliwal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1010
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • August 26, 2015
    ...redetermination, as the visa application would be terminated by section 87.5 in any event ( Kozel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 593 at para 21). [33] Second, in Sin v Canada , 2015 FC 276 at para 4 [ Sin ], Justice O'Reilly struck a claim for damages for loss of oppo......
2 cases
  • GCT Canada Limited Partnership v. Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, 2022 FC 1109
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • July 26, 2022
    ...in 0769449 BC Ltd (Kimberly Transport) v Vancouver Fraser (Port Authority), 2016 FC 645, and Kozel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 593, cited by the VFPA, a situation whereby the change in the legislation transferred the power to grant licences to access the Port of Vancouve......
  • Dhaliwal v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 FC 1010
    • Canada
    • Federal Court (Canada)
    • August 26, 2015
    ...redetermination, as the visa application would be terminated by section 87.5 in any event ( Kozel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2015 FC 593 at para 21). [33] Second, in Sin v Canada , 2015 FC 276 at para 4 [ Sin ], Justice O'Reilly struck a claim for damages for loss of oppo......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT