Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Alashtar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The application was dismissed because the Applicant did not comply with the Court's explicit order to either appoint new counsel or to notify the Court of self-representation by the specified deadline, and the order expressly provided that failure to comply would result in the application being deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Court disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed as abandoned, without costs.

Orders

  • This application for judicial review is dismissed, without costs.
  • There is no question of general importance to be certified.

02

Material facts

Parties

Mohamed Abdullatef Aldawi Alashtar

Applicant

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent Counsel: Amina Riaz

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Judicial Review (immigration) / Dismissed for Abandonment for Failure to Comply With Court Order

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Applicant failed to comply with the Court's order to appoint new counsel or to notify intent to self-represent by the deadline; no substantive arguments were presented to the Court on the merits as a result.
Respondent
The Respondent sought dismissal based on the Applicant's non-compliance with the Court's April 24, 2025 Order and relied on the Court's authority to deem the application abandoned and dismiss it.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Federal Court's inherent authority and Federal Court Rules; Order dated April 24, 2025 in this file

    A court may deem an application abandoned and dismiss it where the applicant fails to comply with an express court order requiring action to continue the proceeding.

  2. 02

    Order dated April 24, 2025 and established case law on dismissal for non-compliance

    Where a party is given clear notice that failure to comply will result in dismissal, the court may enforce that outcome.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The application was dismissed because the Applicant did not comply with the Court's explicit order to either appoint new counsel or to notify the Court of self-representation by the specified deadline, and the order expressly provided that failure to comply would result in the application being deemed abandoned and dismissed.

Obiter and limits

  • There are no questions of general importance to be certified.
  • The Applicant's previous solicitor was removed due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.
  • The hearing previously scheduled for April 28, 2025 was adjourned sine die due to non-compliance.

Court disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed as abandoned, without costs.

  • This application for judicial review is dismissed, without costs.
  • There is no question of general importance to be certified.

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 15 May 2025

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 15 May 2025

2025 FC 891

Alashtar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2025-05-15 Neutral citation 2025 FC 891 File numbers IMM-11371-24 Decision Content Date: 20250515 Docket: IMM-11371-24 Citation: 2025 FC 891 Montreal, Québec, May 15, 2025 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Gascon BETWEEN:

MOHAMED ABDULLATEF ALDAWI ALASHTAR Applicant and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] On April 24, 2025, the Court issued an Order granting a motion by counsel for the Applicant and removing them as solicitor of record for the Applicant in this matter, given the breakdown in the solicitor and client relationship [Order]. [2] In the Order, the Court required that “[t]he Applicant shall, no later than 4:30 p.m. on May 12, 2025, either: (i) appoint a new solicitor as his solicitor of record to represent him in this matter and provide the complete contact details of such solicitor to the Court’s registry and to counsel for the Respondent; or (ii) inform the Court that he intends to represent himself and act in person in this matter and provide his complete contact details to the Court’s registry and to counsel for the Respondent.” [3] The Applicant has failed to comply with these terms of the Order. [4] In the Order, the Court further ordered that, “[s]hould the Applicant fail to abide by the requirements set out above in section 4 of this Order, the Court will deem this application for judicial review to be abandoned and dismiss it on this basis.” For those reasons, the hearing of the application for judicial review in this matter, which was scheduled for April 28, 2025, was adjourned sine die. [5] In light of the foregoing, the Court thus concludes that the Applicant’s application for judicial review in this matter is abandoned and dismisses it on this basis. [6] There are no questions of general importance to be certified. JUDGMENT in IMM-11371-24 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: This application for judicial review is dismissed, without costs. There is no question of general importance to be certified. “Denis Gascon” Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-11371-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: MOHAMED ABDULLATEF ALDAWI ALASHTAR v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO (ONTARIO) DATE OF HEARING: April 28, 2025 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: GASCON J. DATED: MAY 15, 2025 APPEARANCES: Amina Riaz For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.