Williams v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), (2015) 473 F.T.R. 110 (FC)

• Judge: Annis, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 09, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 473 F.T.R. 110 (FC);2015 FC 32

Williams v. Can. (2015), 473 F.T.R. 110 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. FE.022

Alassan Williams (applicant) v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (respondent)

(IMM-5138-13; 2015 FC 32)

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

Federal Court

Annis, J.

January 9, 2015.

Summary:

The Immigration Appeal Division concluded that the applicant had been involved with both the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council and the Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone between 1997 and 2001 and was therefore complicit in the crimes against humanity committed by those organizations. A deportation order was issued against him. The applicant brought a motion appealing a Prothonotary's order which dismissed his motion for an order permitting him to file new evidence by way of a supplementary affidavit, namely an email from the Chief Prosecutor of the Sierra Leone Special Court, as well as a supplementary memorandum in conjunction with and based on the supplementary affidavit of new evidence.

The Federal Court allowed the appeal and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $1,500 in costs.

Aliens - Topic 4066

Practice - Judicial review and appeals - When available - The Immigration Appeal Division concluded that the applicant had been involved with both the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council and the Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone between 1997 and 2001 and was therefore complicit in crimes against humanity - A deportation order was issued against him - The applicant appealed a Prothonotary's order which dismissed his motion for an order permitting him to file new evidence by way of a supplementary affidavit, namely an email from the Chief Prosecutor of the Sierra Leone Special Court, as well as a supplementary memorandum in conjunction with and based on the supplementary affidavit of new evidence - The respondent argued that, by virtue of s. 72(2)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, no appeal lay "with respect to an interlocutory judgment" - The applicant contended that his motion was brought pursuant to rule 51 of the Federal Courts Rules - The Federal Court accepted the respondent's argument - See paragraphs 17 to 20 - However, the court allowed the appeal on a procedural fairness issue - See paragraphs 21 to 29.

Aliens - Topic 4066.1

Practice - Judicial review and appeals - Bars - [See Aliens - Topic 4066 ].

Aliens - Topic 4071

Practice - Judicial review and appeals - Fresh evidence - The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) concluded that the applicant had been involved with both the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council and the Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone between 1997 and 2001 and was therefore complicit in crimes against humanity - A deportation order was issued against him - The applicant appealed a Prothonotary's order which dismissed his motion for an order permitting him to file new evidence by way of a supplementary affidavit, namely an email from the Chief Prosecutor of the Sierra Leone Special Court, as well as a supplementary memorandum in conjunction with and based on the supplementary affidavit of new evidence - The Federal Court allowed the appeal - The respondent engaged in "sharp practice" in its efforts to prevent the applicant from obtaining this significant evidence - The Prothonotary erred in his conclusion that no unfairness occurred by failing to consider the circumstances of the absence of the key evidence which underpinned the IAD's finding that the applicant was inadmissible - The Prothonotary was required to consider the unfairness to the applicant that would result from refusing to allow additional evidence that strongly suggested that the IAD was misled on the key factual conclusion underpinning its decision, which was not available to the applicant due to circumstances beyond his control and despite his diligent and reasonable efforts to obtain it - See paragraphs 21 to 29.

Barristers and Solicitors - Topic 4012

Relations with other lawyers - General - Sharp practice - [See Aliens - Topic 4071 ].

Cases Noticed:

Merck & Co. et al. v. Apotex Inc. (2003), 315 N.R. 175; 2003 FCA 488, refd to. [para. 16].

Canada v. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd., [1993] 2 F.C. 425; 149 N.R. 273 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Spring v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al., [2014] F.T.R. Uned. 170; 243 A.C.W.S.(3d) 936; 2014 FC 41, refd to. [para. 18].

Douze v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) et al. (2010), 375 F.T.R. 195; 2010 FC 1086, refd to. [para. 18].

HD Mining International Ltd. et al. v. Construction and Specialized Workers Union, Local 1611 et al. (2012), 442 N.R. 325; 2012 FCA 327, refd to. [para. 18].

Froom v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2003), 312 N.R. 282; 2003 FCA 331, refd to. [para. 19].

Yogalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2003), 233 F.T.R. 74; 122 A.C.W.S.(3d) 750 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 20].

Lovemore v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 122; 226 A.C.W.S.(3d) 918; 2013 FC 171, refd to. [para. 20].

Patel v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 403; 205 A.C.W.S.(3d) 1060; 2011 FC 670, refd to. [para. 20].

Khan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2008), 175 A.C.W.S.(3d) 14; 2008 FC 1331, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. West Sussex Quarter Sessions, ex p Albert and Maud Johnson Trust Ltd, [1973] 3 All E.R. 289, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Secretary of State for the Environment and another, ex parte Powis, [1981] 1 All E.R. 788 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, sect. 72(2)(e) [para. 17].

Counsel:

Patil Tutunjian, for the applicant;

Anne-Renée Touchette and Michel Pépin, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Doyon & Associés Inc., Immigration Lawyers, Montreal, Quebec, for the applicant;

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

This appeal was heard in writing by Annis, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision at Ottawa, Ontario, on January 9, 2015.