The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario
Issue link: https://digital.lawtimesnews.com/i/50221
PAGE 16 CaseLawLaw FEDERAL COURT Administrative Law FREEDOM OF INFORMATION No merit in argument that proposed regulation was not same as draft legislation Applicant requested copy of re- ports of examination of National Capital Commission Animal Regulations (Can.), proposed to be made by Governor-in-Coun- cil. Regulations were enacted. Director denied information ap- plicant requested because it con- stituted confi dences of Queen's Privy Council. Application for judicial review was dismissed. Cabinet Committee considered and advised on making of pro- posed regulations. Steps were confi dence of Queen's Privy Council. Th ere was no need for separate s. 39 certifi cation under Canada Evidence Act ("CEA"). Access to Information Act (Can.), was self-contained in operation and did not require support of s. 39 of CEA. Th ere was no merit in argument that proposed regulation was not same as draft legislation. Maker of Regulations was Governor-in- Council which was institution acting on advice of Cabinet or committee and clerk's examina- tion was part of process. Quinn v. Canada (Prime Min- ister) (Mar. 29, 2011, F.C., Le- mieux J., File No. T-592-10) 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 916 (21 pp.). NATURAL JUSTICE Minister did not adhere to principles of natural justice Application for judicial review of refusal of Minister to approve ap- plication to transfer to Canadian prison. Applicant was Canadian citizen who was currently incar- cerated in United States, serving seven years and three months for conspiracy with intent to dis- tribute fi ve kilograms or more of cocaine. Applicant applied to Minister for transfer to Can- adian prison to serve remainder of his sentence in Canada. Offi - cials of respondent Minister rec- ommended approval of transfer however Minister nevertheless refused transfer on ground there was evidence that applicant was involved in drug traffi cking and was associated with members of organized crime group from Detroit. Information supporting allegations as to Detroit connec- tion contained in memorandum given to Minister was nowhere to be found in record. Applica- tion allowed. Reasons do not clarify what Minister was refer- ring to when he indicated that applicant was member of organ- ized crime group. If it was refer- ence to Detroit entries in memo- randum that applicant did not see, applicant should have been given copy of that memoran- dum or fair summary. Minister did not adhere to principles of natural justice in that he failed to provide relevant information as to Detroit allegations to ap- plicant. Minister's reasons were inadequate in that they failed to set out clearly what information was considered and how it was weighed. Balili v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Pre- paredness) (Mar. 31, 2011, F.C., Hughes J., File No. T-1460-10) 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1024 (8 pp.). Citizenship APPEAL Determination by Citizenship Judge clearly unreasonable July 11, 2011 • law Times Follow on www.twitter.com/lawtimes COURT DECISIONS Untitled-3 1 CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. CaseLaw is a weekly summary of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in this issue can be obtained by: 5/5/10 3:55:30 PM These cases may be found online in BestCase and other electronic resources from Canada Law Book. To subscribe, please call 1-800-565-6967. i) completing and mailing in the order form in this issue; or ii) calling CaseLaw's photocopy department at (905) 841-6472 in Toronto, (800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or (800) 263-2037 in other provinces; or iii) faxing a copy of the completed order form to (905) 841-5085. Appeal by Minister from deci- sion of Citizenship Judge ap- proving application of respond- ent for Canadian citizenship. Respondent spent only 600 days in Canada in four years preceding his application and was therefore short 495 days of required 1,095 days. Citizenship Judge made reference to fact that respondent's wife and children were Canadian citizens, that re- spondent owned home in Can- ada and that respondent worked on construction projects in Ber- muda and Bahamas to provide for family and returned home each chance he got. Except for connection to mortgage as guar- antor none of those fi ndings was substantiated by anything in re- cord. Th ere were no tax returns or other documents evidencing real and substantial connection to Canada in record before Cit- izenship Judge. Appeal allowed. Given lack of evidence, deter- mination by Citizenship Judge that respondent had established residence in Canada was clearly unreasonable. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Britton (Apr. 12, 2011, F.C., Hughes J., File No. T-1538-10) 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 938 (4 pp.). Courts ABUSE OF PROCESS Plaintiff persistently instituted vexatious proceedings Order declared plaintiff to be vexatious litigant. In underlying action plaintiff alleged order was defamatory in nature. Plaintiff claimed judge should be pros- ecuted under Criminal Code (Can.), and claimed Crown prosecutors were negligent in failing to prosecute judge. Plain- tiff sought damages. Defendants brought motion for order bar- ring plaintiff from continuing underlying action and instituting new proceedings without leave. Motion was allowed. Plaintiff persistently instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted underlying proceeding in vexa- tious manner. Plaintiff initiated 12 proceedings in Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal over last 10 years. Plaintiff had extensive history before Yukon Courts and Nunavut Courts. Volume of unmeritorious inter- locutory application fi led by plaintiff over past 10 years was remarkable. Plaintiff repeatedly made unmeritorious allegations of impropriety against judges, prothonotaries, Registry offi ces and legal counsel. Numerous ap- peals and applications were dis- missed for delay. Mazhero v. Fox (Mar. 30, 2011, F.C., Tremblay-Lamer J., File No. T-1067-10) 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1020 (20 pp.). Immigration EXCLUSION AND EXPULSION Jurisdiction to impose conditions as part of release order preserved Application for judicial review decision by board imposing terms and conditions in ordering applicant's release from deten- tion. Applicant was citizen of Somalia. Since arriving in Can- ada as member of family class, applicant accumulated lengthy criminal record. Applicant was found to be inadmissible, lost his permanent residence status and was issued deportation order. Applicant had serious addiction to alcohol. Applica- tion dismissed. Jurisdiction to impose conditions as part of re- lease order was preserved. Con- ditions were not unreasonable given that member had ongoing concerns about fl ight. Isse v. Canada (Minister of Cit- izenship and Immigration) (Apr. 1, 2011, F.C., Mosley J., File No. IMM-3566-10) 200 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1114 (19 pp.). IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD Little evidence before board to suggest that applicant's fundamental rights were being violated Application for judicial review of denial of refugee claim. Appli- cant was Roma citizen of Czech Republic who claimed protec- tion on ground of persecution by reason of ethnicity. Applicant arrived in Canada in 2008 with husband who was now deceased. Board denied claim on ground applicant did not have well- founded fear of persecution after accepting evidence that Czech Roma were persecuted. Appli- cant contended that board failed to explain why discrimination documented in objective evi- dence fell short of persecution. Application dismissed. Board's analysis was brief but there was little evidence before board to suggest that applicant's funda- mental rights were being violat- ed. Th ere was no evidence that she was denied opportunity to practice her chosen employment. Board recognized that quality of applicant's life in Czech Republic was not pleasant but that was not standard on which to determine this question. Board did not fail to consider any past discrimina- tion suff ered by applicant in determining whether that dis- crimination was persecutory and it did not misstate legal test for persecution. In any event board's decision was ultimately based on state protection fi nding and con- clusion that applicant had failed to rebut presumption of state OntariO Lawyer's PhOne BOOk 2011 Your most complete directorY of ontario lawYers, law firms, judges and courts with more than 1,400 pages of essential legal references, Ontario Lawyer's Phone Book is your best connection to legal services in ontario. subscribers can depend on the credibility, accuracy and currency of this directory year after year. More detail and a wider scope of legal contact information for Ontario than any other source: • more than 26,000 lawyers • more than 9,300 law firms and corporate offices • Includes lists of: federal and provincial judges • • perfectbound published december each year on subscription $66 p/c 0514140999 one time purchase $69 p/c 0514010999 issn 0845-4832 multiple copy discounts available prices subject to change without notice, to applicable taxes and shipping & handling. federal courts, including a section for federal government departments, boards and commissions • ontario courts and services, including a section for provincial government ministries, boards and commissions Visit canadalawbook.ca or call 1.800.565.6967 for a 30-day no-risk evaluation CANADA LAW BOOK® www.lawtimesnews.com OLPB - 1-4 page 5X.indd 1 6/15/11 4:35:13 PM • • fax and telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, office locations and postal codes the institute of law clerks of ontario small claims courts • miscellaneous services for lawyers