Zündel, Re

Zündel, Re

Adjournment denied: assuming a serious question exists, the respondent failed to show irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the Ministers given the statutory scheme requiring an expeditious, final certificate process, the respondent's choice to seek provincial review created delay, and waiting would frustrate Parliament's intent for a streamlined procedure; accordingly the motion to adjourn was dismissed and costs awarded to the Ministers.

Citation
2004 FC 198
Parties
Respondent/applicant: Ernst Zündel; Minister/respondent: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration; Minister/respondent: Canadian Security Intelligence Service / Solicitor General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Certificate Review Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Motion for Adjournment During Certificate Review (interlocutory)
Outcome
Motion for adjournment dismissed; Ministers awarded costs
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Stay, Disclosure, Security Certificate, Detention, Charter Challenge, Interlocutory Appeal, Judicial Review
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law National Security Evidence Law Adjournment Stay Disclosure +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernst Zündel

Respondent/applicant

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Minister/respondent

Canadian Security Intelligence Service / Solicitor General of Canada

Minister/respondent

Procedural Posture

Certificate Review Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Motion for Adjournment During Certificate Review (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an adjournment of the certificate review should be granted pending appellate decisions
  2. 2 Whether interlocutory decisions in the certificate process are appealable
  3. 3 Whether denial of adjournment would cause irreparable harm to the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

Adjournment denied: assuming a serious question exists, the respondent failed to show irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the Ministers given the statutory scheme requiring an expeditious, final certificate process, the respondent's choice to seek provincial review created delay, and waiting would frustrate Parliament's intent for a streamlined procedure; accordingly the motion to adjourn was dismissed and costs awarded to the Ministers.

Court Disposition

Motion for adjournment dismissed; Ministers awarded costs

Orders

  • The motion for an adjournment is dismissed.
  • The Ministers are entitled to one set of costs.