Tabingo v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (2013) 431 F.T.R. 118 (FC)

• Judge: Rennie, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 18, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2013), 431 F.T.R. 118 (FC);2013 FC 377

Tabingo v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2013), 431 F.T.R. 118 (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: [2013] F.T.R. TBEd. AP.018

Mae Joy Tabingo (applicant) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-5635-12; 2013 FC 377; 2013 CF 377)

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

Federal Court

Rennie, J.

April 18, 2013.

Summary:

The eight applicants, citizens of diverse nationalities, applied for federal skilled worker permanent resident visas before February 27, 2008. They were now subject to legislation which purported to cancel their applications without further consideration. Section 87.4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) provided that applications described in that section were terminated unless an officer had made a selection decision before March 29, 2012. The applicants sought an order of mandamus directing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to process their applications. They also alleged that s. 87.4 violated the rule of law, the Bill of Rights and the Charter. The applicants were identified to represent some 1400 other individuals, all of whom had commenced applications seeking similar relief.

The Federal Court dismissed the applications. Section 87.4 was valid legislation, compliant with the rule of law, the Bill of Rights and the Charter. The applications had been terminated by operation of law, and the court could not order mandamus. Pursuant to s. 74(d) of the IRPA, the following questions were certified: "a. Does subsection 87.4(1) of the IRPA terminate by operation of law the applications described in that subsection upon its coming into force, and if not, are the applicants entitled to mandamus? b. Does the Canadian Bill of Rights mandate notice and an opportunity to make submissions prior to termination of an application under subsection 87.4(1) of the IRPA? c. Is section 87.4 of the IRPA unconstitutional, being contrary to the rule of law or sections 7 and 15 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?".

Administrative Law - Topic 3553

Judicial review - Mandamus - Conditions precedent - Existence of duty - [See tenth Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3705

Judicial review - Mandamus - Mandamus to government and executive - Ministers of the Crown - [See tenth Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Aliens - Topic 2

Definitions and general principles - Legislation - Interpretation - [See second Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Aliens - Topic 1206

Admission - Immigrants - Upon compassionate or humanitarian grounds - [See eleventh Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Aliens - Topic 1230.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Skilled workers - The Federal Court set out the legislative background concerning s. 87.4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a recent amendment introduced by Bill C-38, known as the Jobs Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act - Section 87.4(1) provided that applications for permanent residence as a member of the federal skilled worker class made before February 27, 2008, were terminated unless an officer had made a selection decision before March 29, 2012 - See paragraphs 5 to 14.

Aliens - Topic 1230.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Skilled workers - Section 87.4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provided that applications for permanent residence as a member of the federal skilled worker (FSW) class made before February 27, 2008, were terminated unless an officer had made a selection decision before March 29, 2012 - The eight applicants had their FSW applications terminated - On judicial review, they submitted that s. 87.4 did not apply retrospectively to interfere with vested rights - The Federal Court determined that s. 87.4 was intended to terminate the applications upon its coming into force - This required that it apply retrospectively, cancelling any entitlement the applicants might have had to have their applications considered - Here, the ordinary meaning of the provision governed - The plain and obvious meaning of s. 87.4 required that the provision be retrospective and interfere with vested rights, regardless of any perceived unfairness - The wording, when read in context, did not demonstrate any ambiguity such that presumptions relied on by the applicants were triggered - See paragraphs 17 to 28.

Aliens - Topic 1230.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Skilled workers - Section 87.4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provided that applications for permanent residence as a member of the federal skilled worker (FSW) class made before February 27, 2008, were terminated unless an officer had made a selection decision before March 29, 2012 - The eight applicants had not received a selection decision prior to March 29, 2012 - On judicial review, they submitted the applications remained extant until an adjudicative decision was made - The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration took the position that the applications were terminated by operation of law at the time of Royal Assent, on June 29, 2012 - The Federal Court concluded that s. 87.4 terminated the applications at issue by operation of law - There was no requirement for individualized adjudication - "[W]hat subsection 87.4(1) entails is a non-discretionary application of the law to incontestable facts" - If the applications were not terminated, as a matter of law, but terminated only upon some subsequent assessment, then the plain and obvious meaning of s. 87.4 would be undermined - See paragraphs 29 to 37.

Aliens - Topic 1230.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Skilled workers - Section 87.4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a recent amendment, provided that applications for permanent residence as a member of the federal skilled worker (FSW) class made before February 27, 2008, were terminated unless an officer had made a selection decision before March 29, 2012 - In the result, the applicants' FSW applications were terminated - On judicial review, the applicants submitted that s. 87.4 violated their rights under s. 1(a) of the Bill of Rights (the right not to be deprived of property except by due process of law), and s. 2(e), which guaranteed a fair hearing - The Federal Court held that its conclusion that there was no adjudicative process involved in terminating the applications was determinative of the issue - The due process protections "do not apply to legislative enactments ... and, as there is no individualized decision to terminate the applications, the Bill of Rights is inapplicable. The Bill of Rights only guarantees the fairness of proceedings before a tribunal or administrative body that determines rights and obligations." - See paragraphs 39 and 40 - "In sum, a pending FSW application does not constitute property within the meaning of subsection 1(a) ... Even if it was considered property, the Bill of Rights does not prevent the expropriation of property without compensation by the passage of unambiguous legislation." - See paragraph 44.

Aliens - Topic 1230.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Skilled workers - The eight applicants applied for federal skilled worker permanent resident visas before February 27, 2008 - They were now subject to s. 87.4 of the Immigration and Refugee Act, a recent amendment, which purported to terminate their applications - On judicial review, they argued that the provision violated the rule of law because it was vague and had retrospective effects - The Federal Court dismissed the argument - "Three principles underlie the rule of law. First, the law is supreme over both the government and individuals. Second, law must be created and maintained to preserve and embody a normative order. Third, the relationship between individuals and the state must be regulated by law. None of these principles speak directly to the content of legislation" - Parliament had expressed a clear intention that s. 87.4 apply retrospectively; it did not violate the rule of law - Section 87.4 was also not contrary to the rule of law due to vagueness - Acceptance of the argument predicated on the unwritten principles of the Constitution would render the written constitutional rights redundant - "The recognition of unwritten constitutional principles is not an invitation to dispense with the written text of the Constitution" - See paragraphs 45 to 53.

Aliens - Topic 1230.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Skilled workers - The eight applicants applied for federal skilled worker permanent resident visas before February 27, 2008 - They were now subject to s. 87.4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a recent amendment which purported to cancel their applications without further consideration - On judicial review, the applicants argued that s. 87.4 unduly interfered with judicial independence by prescribing certain outcomes - The Federal Court stated that the argument "misunderstands the origins and purpose of judicial independence. ... It is not interference with judicial independence for Parliament to write legislation which leads to a certain outcome when properly applied. This is the proper function of lawmaking ... Section 87.4 does not bar access to the courts. Finally, Crown immunity clauses, such as that contained in subsection 87.4(5), are not unconstitutional unless the statute itself is ultra vires on division of powers grounds" - See paragraphs 54 to 60.

Aliens - Topic 1230.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Skilled workers - Section 87.4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provided that applications for permanent residence as a member of the federal skilled worker (FSW) class made before February 27, 2008, were terminated unless an officer had made a selection decision before March 29, 2012 - In the result, the applicants' FSW applications were terminated - On judicial review, the applicants contended that s. 87.4 violated the Charter - As a threshold issue, there was the question whether the applicants, as non-citizens residing outside of Canada, were entitled to the protection of ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter - The respondent did not dispute the application of the Charter - The Federal Court stated that the jurisprudence did not support the concession that the FSW applications established a sufficient nexus with Canada to extend the reach of ss. 7 and 15 - "In this case, there is no question of the extra-territorial application of the Charter as an adjunct of the actions of Canadian officials abroad, nor is there, as I conclude on the evidence, non-compliant administration of the legislation." - Given that there was no lis between the parties on the issue, the court did not determine the point - In any event, the court found that the claims of infringement failed on their merits - See paragraphs 61 to 79.

Aliens - Topic 1230.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Skilled workers - The eight applicants applied for federal skilled worker (FSW) permanent resident visas before February 27, 2008 - They were now subject to s. 87.4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which purported to cancel their applications without further consideration - They contended that s. 87.4 violated s. 7 of the Charter; specifically, that their liberty and security of the person interests were engaged because immigration was a decision of fundamental personal importance and because of the stress and hardship they had experienced in hopes of immigrating - The Federal Court held that, giving s. 7 its widest scope, there were no s. 7 interests engaged by s. 87.4 - "The ability to immigrate, particularly as a member of an economic class, is not among the fundamental choices relating to personal autonomy which would engage section 7. ... [T]he possibility of immigrating to Canada as a successful FSW applicant does not engage life or liberty interests. The voluntary character of the applicants' decision to apply for a FSW visa, and to voluntarily put major life decision in abeyance pending the outcome, is determinative of the question as to whether security of the person is engaged. ... All section 87.4 did was terminate the opportunity [to immigrate]." - See paragraphs 80 to 102.

Aliens - Topic 1230.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Skilled workers - Section 87.4(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provided that applications for permanent residence as a member of the federal skilled worker (FSW) class made before February 27, 2008, were terminated unless an officer had made a selection decision before March 29, 2012 - The eight applicants, citizens of diverse nationalities, had their FSW applications terminated - On judicial review, they alleged that s. 87.4 violated s. 15 of the Charter by codifying past discrimination on the basis of national origin - They submitted that Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) discriminated against individuals from Asia, the Middle East and Africa, and that in failing to dedicate the necessary resources to the posts in those countries, CIC perpetuated the view that individuals in those countries were less desirable - The Federal Court held that s. 87.4, in its purpose or effect, was not discriminatory within the meaning of s. 15 - The evidence did not support the claim that s. 87.4 was discriminatory - First, the applicants had not demonstrated that s. 87.4 had a disproportionate impact on the basis of national origin - Second, the evidence did not indicate that s. 87.4 perpetuated a disadvantage through prejudice or stereotyping - In total, between 2002 and 2011, some 73% of Canada's economic immigrants were from the very regions that the applicants argued were viewed as undesirable - "Section 87.4 must be considered in light of the wider immigration context. ... As the historical evidence consistently indicated, globally viewed, economic immigrants from Asia, the Middle East and Africa become Canadian permanent residents in large numbers." - See paragraphs 103 to 137.

Aliens - Topic 1230.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Skilled workers - The eight applicants, citizens of diverse nationalities, applied for federal skilled worker permanent resident visas before February 27, 2008 - They were now subject to s. 87.4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which purported to cancel their applications without further consideration - They sought an order of mandamus directing the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to process their applications, and filed Notices of Constitutional Question alleging that s. 87.4 violated the rule of law, the Bill of Rights and the Charter - The Federal Court held that there could be no order for mandamus - Having found that s. 87.4 was unambiguous and constitutionally valid legislation, the applications were terminated, and the Minister had no legal duty to continue to process them - The court also rejected the applicants' argument that, even before s. 87.4 came into force, the Minister had already breached their rights to timely processing of their applications - Mandamus could not remedy a past breach when there was no present duty - See paragraphs 139 and 140.

Aliens - Topic 1230.4

Admission - Immigrants - Application for admission - Immigrant visa - Skilled workers - The eight applicants applied for federal skilled worker (FSW) permanent resident visas before February 27, 2008 - They were now subject to s. 87.4 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), which purported to cancel their applications without further consideration - On judicial review, they argued that, even if their files were terminated, they were entitled, under s. 25 of the IRPA, to apply for humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) relief from the application of s. 87.4 - The applicants noted that the Minister had used a similar section (s. 25.2) to assist applicants who were issued visas in error even though their applications were captured by s. 87.4 - The Federal Court held there was no conflict between the Minister's decision under s. 25.2 and his position in the present applications - Public policy considerations warranted granting the visas and necessary exemptions - Those individuals had already been issued permanent resident visas; some might have already landed in Canada - The discretion conferred under s. 25.2 was very broad - In any event, no H&C request had been made to the Minister nor was there a refusal - The argument was thus premature - See paragraphs 141 to 144.

Civil Rights - Topic 1001.1

Discrimination - Immigration - Immigrants (incl. permanent residence applications, humanitarian and compassionate considerations, etc.) - [See eleventh Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1031

Discrimination - Race and national or ethnic origin - General - [See ninth Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8004

Canadian or provincial Bill of Rights - Principles of operation and interpretation - Nature of Canadian Bill of Rights - The Federal Court stated that "[t]he Bill of Rights was enacted in 1960 as a statute of Parliament. While it has diminished importance in light of the Charter, as the Charter does not contain a general guarantee of 'due process' or any protection for economic rights, the Bill of Rights retains continued significance in the landscape of Canadian jurisprudence." - See paragraph 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 8005

Canadian or provincial Bill of Rights - Principles of operation and interpretation - Due process - Right to life, liberty, security and enjoyment of property - [See fourth Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8006

Canadian or provincial Bill of Rights - Principles of operation and interpretation - Right to fair hearing in accordance with principles of fundamental justice - [See fourth Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8305

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application of - Persons protected - [See seventh Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8306

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - General - Application of - Territorial limits - [See seventh Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8546

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Life, liberty and security of the person - [See eighth Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8552

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Particular words and phrases - Rule of law - [See fifth Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 5.3

General principles - Unwritten constitutional principles - Constitutionalism and the rule of law - [See fifth Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 5.5

General principles - Unwritten constitutional principles, separation of powers, judicial independence and judicial impartiality - [See sixth Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 114

Definitions - Rule of law - [See fifth Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Constitutional Law - Topic 542

Powers of Parliament and the legislatures - Limitations on powers of legislatures - Rule of law - [See fifth Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Statutes - Topic 502

Interpretation - General principles - Intention of Parliament or legislature - [See fifth Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Statutes - Topic 516

Interpretation - General principles - Ordinary meaning of words - [See second Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Statutes - Topic 2263

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Against interference with vested rights - [See second Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Statutes - Topic 2272

Interpretation - Presumptions and rules in aid - Presumption against retrospective or retroactive operation - [See second Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Statutes - Topic 2614

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - Legislative or statutory context - [See second Aliens - Topic 1230.4 ].

Cases Noticed:

Celgene Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 3; 410 N.R. 127; 2011 SCC 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 438 N.R. 1; 300 O.A.C. 202; 2012 SCC 71, refd to. [para. 22].

British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. et al., [2005] 2 S.C.R. 473; 339 N.R. 129; 218 B.C.A.C. 1; 359 W.A.C. 1; 2005 SCC 49, refd to. [para. 22].

Gustavson Drilling (1964) Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 271; 7 N.R. 401, refd to. [para. 22].

Authorson v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 40; 306 N.R. 335; 175 O.A.C. 363; 2003 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 40].

Babcock et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 3; 289 N.R. 341; 168 B.C.A.C. 50; 275 W.A.C. 50; 2002 SCC 57, consd. [para. 48].

R. v. Spindloe (M.) (2002), 207 Sask.R. 3; 247 W.A.C. 3; 2001 SKCA 58, refd to. [para. 51].

Secession of Quebec, Reference Re, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217; 228 N.R. 203, refd to. [para. 52].

Bacon et al. v. Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corp. et al., [1999] 11 W.W.R. 51; 180 Sask.R. 20; 205 W.A.C. 20 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (2000), 257 N.R. 396; 203 Sask. R. 109; 240 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 56].

Kingsway General Insurance Co. v. Alberta, 2005 ABQB 662, refd to. [para. 60].

Slahi v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al. (2009), 340 F.T.R. 236; 2009 FC 160, affd. (2009), 394 N.R. 352; 2009 FCA 259, consd. [para. 66].

Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; 58 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Cook (D.R.), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 597; 230 N.R. 83; 112 B.C.A.C. 1; 182 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Hape (L.R.), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 292; 363 N.R. 1; 227 O.A.C. 191; 2007 SCC 26, consd. [para. 69].

Khadr v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 125; 375 N.R. 47; 2008 SCC 28, dist. [para. 72].

Amnesty International Canada et al. v. Canadian Armed Forces (Chief, Defence Staff) et al. (2008), 320 F.T.R. 257; 2008 FC 336, affd. (2008), 383 N.R. 268; 2008 FCA 401, refd to. [para. 73].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 74].

A. v. B. (2013), 439 N.R. 1; 2013 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 74].

Zeng v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 426 F.T.R. 117; 2013 FC 104, refd to. [para. 75].

Kinsel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2012), 423 F.T.R. 299; 2012 FC 1515, refd to. [para. 75].

Toronto Coalition to Stop the War et al. v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) et al. (2010), 374 F.T.R. 177; 2010 FC 957, refd to. [para. 75].

Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada et al., [1990] 2 F.C. 534; 106 N.R. 61 (F.C.A.), affd. in part [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236; 132 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 76].

Ruparel v. Minister of Employment and Immigration et al., [1990] 3 F.C. 615; 36 F.T.R. 140 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 76].

Deol v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2001), 211 F.T.R. 12, affd. (2002), 291 N.R. 218; 2002 FCA 271, refd to. [para. 76].

Crease v. Canada (Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship), [1994] 3 F.C. 480; 78 F.T.R. 192 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 77].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 44, refd to. [para. 81].

Chiarelli v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 711; 135 N.R. 161, refd to. [para. 82].

Medovarski v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 539; 339 N.R. 1; 2005 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 83].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 97].

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 97].

B. (R.) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto - see Sheena B., Re.

Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519; 158 N.R. 1; 34 B.C.A.C. 1; 56 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 98].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1; 2000 SCC 69, refd to. [para. 105].

Corbière et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 112].

R. v. Turpin, Siddiqui and Clauzel (1989), 96 N.R. 115; 34 O.A.C. 115 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 113].

Withler v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 1 S.C.R. 396; 412 N.R. 149; 300 B.C.A.C. 120; 509 W.A.C. 120; 2011 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 116].

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 116].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 80]; sect. 15(1) [para. 103].

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 87.4 [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 19].

Newman, Warren J., The Principles of the Rule of Law and Parliamentary Sovereignty in Constitutional Theory and Litigation (2005), 16 N.J.C.L. 175, generally [para. 52].

Counsel:

Mario Bellissimo and Erin Roth, for the applicant, Mae Joy Tabingo, IMM-5635-12;

Lorne Waldman and Jacqueline Swaisland, for the applicant ,Yanjun Yin, IMM-8747-12;

Matthew Jeffery, for the applicant, Ali Raza Jafri, IMM-4866-12;

Rocco Galati and Lawrence S. Wong, for the applicant, Sumera Shahid, IMM-3725-12;

Rocco Galati and Lawrence S. Wong, for the applicant, Fang Wei, IMM-6165-12;

Keith Reimer, Marin Anderson, Jocelyn Espejo-Clarke and C. Julian Jubenville, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Bellissimo Law Group, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant, Mae Joy Tabingo, IMM-5635-12;

Lorne Waldman & Associates, Toronto, Ontario for the applicant, Yanjun Yin, IMM-8747-12;

Matthew Jeffery, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant, Ali Raza Jafri, IMM-4866-12;

Cecil L. Rotenberg, Q.C., Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant, Maria Sari Teresa Borja Austria, IMM-10307-12;

Lawrence S. Wong, Mississauga, Ontario, for the applicant, Fang Wei, IMM-6165-12;

Blanshay & Lewis, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant, Habibollah Abedi, IMM-8669-12;

Mary L. F. Lam, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant, Zafar Mahmood et al., IMM-8302-12;

Lee & Company, Immigration Advocacy, Counsel & Litigation and Wennie Lee, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicant, Sumera Shahid, IMM-3725-12;

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

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on January 14 to 16, 2013, before Rennie, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment and judgment, dated April 18, 2013, at Ottawa, Ontario.