Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Cesar 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 motion is dismissed because the respondent declined to opt into the Study Permit Pilot and the ALJR raises an admissibility issue under s.40(1)(a) IRPA, making it a complex matter and thus ineligible for the Pilot; additionally, the Motion Record fails to comply with s.10(2) of the Rules and the Applicant must serve and file an Applicant's Record under s.10(1); a Certified Tribunal Record is only appropriate where the Court intends to grant leave.

Court disposition

motion dismissed

Orders

  • The Applicant's motion is dismissed.
  • The Applicant is expected to serve and file an Applicant's Record in the form and within the timelines set out in s.10(1) of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22.

02

Material facts

Parties

Ishimwe Aime Cesar

Applicant Counsel: Ishimwe Aime Cesar

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent Counsel: Alex Dalcourt

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Application for Leave and for Judicial Review / Motion Dismissed

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant sought an order that the ALJR proceed under the Federal Court's Simplified Procedure – Study Permit Pilot Project and filed a motion to opt in to the Pilot.
Respondent
Respondent refused to opt into the Pilot and argued the underlying study permit refusal raises an admissibility issue under s.40(1)(a) of the IRPA, making the proceeding a complex matter ineligible for the Pilot; respondent also submitted the Motion Record does not comply with s.10(2) of the Rules and that a CTR is ordered only if the Court intends to grant leave.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Federal Court Study Permit Pilot Project (launched October 1, 2024) and Rule framework

    The Federal Court's Study Permit Pilot Project requires both parties to agree to opt in and that the proceeding not involve a complex matter such as an admissibility issue.

  2. 02

    Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27; Pilot criteria applied by the Court

    An admissibility finding under s.40(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act constitutes a complex matter that renders a proceeding ineligible for the Pilot.

  3. 03

    Practice in Immigration Matters before the Federal Court (as applied in decision)

    A Certified Tribunal Record in immigration matters is ordered only if the Court intends to grant leave, normally by way of a production order.

  4. 04

    Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22

    Motion Records must comply with s.10(2) of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules and applicants must serve and file an Applicant's Record in the form and within the timelines set out in s.10(1).

  5. 05

    Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106; Rule 369; Pilot documentation

    Motions to change the procedure under the Court's Pilot fall to be decided having regard to the Pilot's eligibility criteria and the parties' consent.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The motion is dismissed because the respondent declined to opt into the Study Permit Pilot and the ALJR raises an admissibility issue under s.40(1)(a) IRPA, making it a complex matter and thus ineligible for the Pilot; additionally, the Motion Record fails to comply with s.10(2) of the Rules and the Applicant must serve and file an Applicant's Record under s.10(1); a Certified Tribunal Record is only appropriate where the Court intends to grant leave.

Obiter and limits

  • The Court noted but did not decide that the ALJR was served and filed before the Pilot's commencement on October 1, 2024.
  • The Court declined to accept the filed Motion Record as the Applicant's Record given non-compliance with the Rules.

Court disposition

motion dismissed

  • The Applicant's motion is dismissed.
  • The Applicant is expected to serve and file an Applicant's Record in the form and within the timelines set out in s.10(1) of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22.

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 29 October 2024

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· 29 October 2024

2024 FC 1716

Cesar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2024-10-29 Neutral citation 2024 FC 1716 File numbers IMM-17689-24 Decision Content Date: 20241029 Docket: IMM-17689-24 Citation: 2024 FC 1716 Toronto, Ontario, October 29, 2024 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Diner BETWEEN:

ISHIMWE AIME CESAR Applicant and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent

ORDER AND REASONS [1] The Applicant has brought a motion, filed October 17, 2024, pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, for an order that the Applicant’s Application for Leave and for Judicial Review [ALJR] proceed under the Simplified Procedure – Study Permit Pilot Project, which I received on the afternoon of October 25, 2024. [2] The Federal Court’s Study Permit Pilot Project [Pilot], launched on October 1, 2024, includes a list of criteria which must be met in order to be considered for the pilot project. Specifically, the following two criteria must be met: (i) both parties must agree to opt in to the Pilot, and (ii) the proceeding cannot involve a complex matter (such as an issue of admissibility). [3] In response to the first criterion, the Respondent does not agree to opt into the Pilot. [4] In response to the second criterion, the Respondent correctly points out that the study permit refusal, which forms the basis of Mr. Cesar’s ALJR, raises an admissibility issue (under section 40(1)(a)) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (S.C. 2001, c. 27). [5] Due to these two issues, this ALJR is therefore ineligible for consideration under the Pilot. I therefore leave aside a third issue, namely that this ALJR was served and filed on September 25, 2024, approximately a week prior to the October 1, 2024 commencement of the Pilot. [6] The

Respondent is also correct as to the Certified Tribunal Record [CTR]. In Immigration Matters, the CTR is only ordered if the Court intends on granting leave, by way of a production order. [7] Finally, the Respondent requests directions on the Motion Record, and whether the Court will accept it as the Application Record. The Court declines to do so. The Motion Record that has been filed does not comply with the requirements of section 10(2) of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22 [Rules]. The Applicant is expected to serve and file an Applicant’s Record in the form and within the timelines set out in section 10(1) of the Rules. ORDER in IMM-17689-24 THIS COURT ORDERS that the Applicant’s motion is dismissed. blank "Alan S. Diner" blank Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-17689-24 STYLE OF CAUSE: ISHIMWE AIME CESAR v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

MATTER CONSIDERED IN WRITING WITHOUT THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE PARTIES ORDER and reasons: DINER J. DATED: October 29, 2024 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Ishimwe Aime Cesar For The Applicant ON HIS OWN BEHALF Alex Dalcourt For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, 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.

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s.40(1)(a)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, s.10(1), s.10(2)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rule 369

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.