Vaziri v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1159

• Judge: Snider, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 05, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2006 FC 1159;(2006), 300 F.T.R. 158 (FC)

Vaziri v. Can. (M.C.I.) (2006), 300 F.T.R. 158 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.019

Homayoun Vaziri and Hassan Vaziri (applicants) v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (respondent)

(IMM-7109-05; 2006 FC 1159)

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

Federal Court

Snider, J.

September 29, 2006.

Summary:

Vaziri applied in August 2003 to sponsor a visa application by his father. The application was delayed because the Minister had adopted a policy of giving higher priority to applications involving spouses and children. Asserting that the Minister lacked lawful authority to prioritize and discriminate between classes of applicants, Vaziri applied for mandamus requiring the Minister to render a decision.

The Federal Court concluded that the Minister acted lawfully. The application for mandamus was dismissed but the court certified two questions.

Administrative Law - Topic 3503

Judicial review - Mandamus - General - When available - Vaziri applied in August 2003 to sponsor a visa application by his father - The application was delayed because the Minister had adopted a policy of giving higher priority to applications involving spouses and children - Asserting that the Minister lacked lawful authority to prioritize and discriminate between classes of applicants, Vaziri applied for mandamus requiring the Minister to render a decision - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The court reviewed the sponsorship process and concluded that the Minister acted lawfully in establishing target levels for immigration that incorporated a 60:40 ratio between economic and non-economic classes, establishing targets for visa approvals by class and in setting procedures for prioritizing sponsored applications within the family class.

Administrative Law - Topic 3705

Judicial review - Mandamus - Mandamus to government and executive - Ministers of the Crown - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3503 ].

Aliens - Topic 24

Definitions and general principles - Minister of Citizenship and Immigration - Duty of - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3503 ].

Aliens - Topic 1287

Admission - Immigrants - Sponsorship - Members of the family class - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3503 ].

Cases Noticed:

Greenisle Environmental Inc. v. Prince Edward Island (2005), 248 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 39; 741 A.P.R. 39; 2005 PESCTD 33, dist. [para. 21].

Brant Dairy Co. v. Ontario (Milk Commission), [1973] S.C.R. 131, dist. [para. 24].

C.T.V. Television Network Ltd. v. Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 530; 41 N.R. 271, refd to. [para. 24].

De Guzman v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005), 345 N.R. 73; 2005 FCA 436, consd. [para. 26].

Capital Cities Communications Inc. et al. v. Canadian Radio-Television Commission et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141; 18 N.R. 181, refd to. [para. 31].

Carpenter Fishing Corp. et al. v. Canada (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) et al. (1997), 221 N.R. 372 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Blencoe v. Human Rights Commission (B.C.) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307; 260 N.R. 1; 141 B.C.A.C. 161; 231 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 38].

Aoptex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) - see Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc.

Apotex Inc. v. Merck & Co. and Merck Frosst Canada Inc., [1994] 1 F.C. 742; 162 N.R. 177 (F.C.A.), affd. [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1100; 176 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

Dragan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2003] 4 F.C. 189; 227 F.T.R. 272, supplementary reasons 228 F.T.R. 52 (T.D.), affd. [2003] N.R. Uned. 134; 2003 FCA 233, refd to. [para. 38].

Hanano v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2004), 257 F.T.R. 66; 2004 FC 998, refd to. [para. 50].

Conille v. Canada (Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'Immigration), [1999] 2 F.C. 33; 159 F.T.R. 215 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 50].

Shapovalov v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005), 276 F.T.R. 66; 2005 FC 753, refd to. [para. 52].

Gupta v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 186 F.T.R. 232 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 60].

Zhang v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 283; 2005 FC 427, refd to. [para. 60].

Counsel:

Lorne Waldman and Tetyana Tokar, for the applicants;

Marie-Louise Wcislo and Rhonda Marquis, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Waldman & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the applicants;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on September 5, 2006, by Snider, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for order on September 29, 2006.