Tiky v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
The Court held that there was no reviewable error in Mr. Justice Pinard's conclusion that the Immigration Appeal Division lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a deportation order by a protected person found inadmissible for violating human or international rights, and therefore the appeal was dismissed and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2005 FCA 426
- Parties
- Appellant: Anbessie Debele Tiky; Respondent: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 December 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal / Decision (reasons Delivered)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; certified question answered in the negative
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Deportation Orders, Protected Person Status, Inadmissibility for Human or International Rights Violations, Immigration Appeal Division Jurisdiction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Anbessie Debele Tiky
Appellant
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal / Decision (reasons Delivered)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Immigration Appeal Division had jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a deportation order by a protected person found inadmissible for violating human or international rights
- 2 Whether the Federal Court judge committed a reviewable error in concluding the IAD lacked jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that there was no reviewable error in Mr. Justice Pinard's conclusion that the Immigration Appeal Division lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a deportation order by a protected person found inadmissible for violating human or international rights, and therefore the appeal was dismissed and the certified question answered in the negative.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; certified question answered in the negative
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Certified question answered in the negative
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Tiky v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-12-13 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 426 File numbers A-254-05 Decision Content Date: 20051213 Docket: A-254-05 Citation: 2005 FCA 426 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: ANBESSIE DEBELE TIKY Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on December 13, 2005. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on December 13, 2005. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A. Date: 20051213 Docket: A-254-05 Citation: 2005 FCA 426 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. SEXTON J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: ANBESSIE DEBELE TIKY Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on December 13, 2005) DÉCARY J.A. [1] We have not been persuaded that Mr. Justice Pinard made any reviewable error in finding that the Immigration Appeal Division had correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a deportation order by a foreign national who is a protected person and who has been found to be inadmissible for having violated human or international rights. [2] The appeal will be dismissed and the certified question will be answered in the negative. This is not a case where, pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Court Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, there are special reasons to allow costs. "Robert Décary" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-254-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: ANBESSIE DEBELE TIKY Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 13, 2005 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: (DÉCARY, SEXTON & EVANS JJ.A.) DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: DÉCARY J.A. APPEARANCES: Michael Crane FOR THE APPELLANT Claire LeRiche Neeta Logsetty FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Michael Crane Barrister and Solicitor Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT John H. Sims Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT