Froom v. Canada (Minister of citizenship and immigration)
The appeal was quashed because s.72(2)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act bars appeals from interlocutory judgments and, alternatively, because no certified question was presented as required under s.74(d) of the Act and s.83(1) of the Immigration Act, so the Federal Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2003 FCA 331
- Parties
- Appellant: Arthur Froom; Respondent: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 10 September 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Immigration Appeal / Motion to Quash Notice of Appeal (written Representations)
- Outcome
- Motion allowed; Notice of Appeal quashed
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Appeals, Statutory Bar to Appeal, Certified Question, 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
Arthur Froom
Appellant
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Immigration Appeal / Motion to Quash Notice of Appeal (written Representations)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order in an immigration matter
- 2 Whether the absence of a certified question deprives the Court of jurisdiction
- 3 Whether the dismissal of a motion for leave to file a further affidavit is appealable
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was quashed because s.72(2)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act bars appeals from interlocutory judgments and, alternatively, because no certified question was presented as required under s.74(d) of the Act and s.83(1) of the Immigration Act, so the Federal Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
Court Disposition
Motion allowed; Notice of Appeal quashed
Orders
- Notice of Appeal quashed
- Costs awarded to the respondent
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Froom v. Canada (Minister of citizenship and immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2003-09-10 Neutral citation 2003 FCA 331 File numbers A-373-03 Decision Content Date: 20030910 Docket: A-373-03 Citation: 2003 FCA 331 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. NOËL J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: ARTHUR FROOM Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties. Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 10, 2003. REASONS FOR ORDER BY: DÉCARY J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. NOËL J.A. Date: 20030910 Docket: A-373-03 Citation: 2003 FCA 331 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. NOËL J.A. EVANS J.A. BETWEEN: ARTHUR FROOM Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR ORDER DÉCARY J.A. [1] This is a motion by the respondent for an Order quashing the Notice of Appeal on the basis that the Federal Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an interlocutory Order in an immigration matter and, also, that, in the absence of a certified question, this Court has no jurisdiction. The interlocutory Order in issue, here, is an Order of Mr. Justice O'Reilly dismissing the appellant's motion for leave to file a further affidavit. [2] The Notice of Appeal should be quashed on either of the grounds alleged by the respondent. [3] On the one hand, an appeal from an interlocutory judgment is barred by paragraph 72(2)(e) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (the Act), S.C. 2001, c. 27, which states: 72. (2) The following provisions govern an application under subsection (1): ... (e) no appeal lies from the decision of the Court with respect to the application or with respect to an interlocutory judgment. 72. (2) Les dispositions suivantes s'appliquent à la demande d'autorisation: ... e) le jugement sur la demande et toute décision interlocutoire ne sont pas susceptibles d'appel. (see Yogalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2003 FCT 540, O'Keefe J.; [2003] F.C.J. No. 697 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)). There is no doubt that the Order at issue is an interlocutory order (see Canada (Attorney General) v. Hennelly (1995), 99 F.T.R. 320). [4] On the other hand, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal where no question has been certified: paragraph 74(d) of the Act, subsection 83(1) of the Immigration Act (see Grandison v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2000), 259 N.R. 81; (2000), 8 Imm. L.R. (3d) 180). [5] I would allow the motion and quash the appeal, with costs to the respondent. "Robert Décary" J.A. "I agree. Marc Noël, J.A." "I agree. John M. Evans, J.A." FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-373-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: Arthur Froom v. M.C.I. MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES REASONS FOR ORDER BY: Décary J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: Noël J.A. Evans J.A. DATED: September 10, 2003 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Lorne Waldman FOR THE APPELLANT Alexis Singer FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Waldman & Associates Toronto, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT Morris Rosenberg Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT