Kenguruka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Because the trial judge certified a question without analyzing the legal principles in his reasons and thus failed to show that the certified question met s.74 IRPA, there was no right of appeal and the appeal was dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2015 FCA 202
- Parties
- Appellant: Jean-Pierre Kenguruka; Respondent: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 September 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Immigration Judicial Review Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Federal Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Federal Court
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Certification of Question, Standard of Review, Section 74 IRPA, Reasons for Judgment
- 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
Jean-Pierre Kenguruka
Appellant
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Immigration Judicial Review Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Federal Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Federal Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the certified question met the requirements of s.74 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
- 2 Whether the trial judge addressed and analyzed the certified question in his reasons for judgment
- 3 Whether certification without adequate reasons gives rise to a right of appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Because the trial judge certified a question without analyzing the legal principles in his reasons and thus failed to show that the certified question met s.74 IRPA, there was no right of appeal and the appeal was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Kenguruka v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2015-09-17 Neutral citation 2015 FCA 202 File numbers A-461-14 Decision Content Date: 20150917 Docket: A-461-14 Citation: 2015 FCA 202 CORAM: NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. BETWEEN: JEAN-PIERRE KENGURUKA Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on September 17, 2015. Judgment delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 17, 2015. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: PELLETIER J.A. Date: 20150917 Docket: A-461-14 Citation: 2015 FCA 202 CORAM: NADON J.A. PELLETIER J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. BETWEEN: JEAN-PIERRE KENGURUKA Appellant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on September 17, 2015.) PELLETIER J.A. [1] We are all of the view that the question certified by the Federal Court judge does not meet the requirements of section 74 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. [2] The trial judge did not consider the certified question in his reasons. He simply stated the question and referred to the standard of review. He did not analyze the legal principles relating to the question he certified that are to be found in the Act and the case law. Upon reading his reasons, we cannot discern which legal principles (apart from the standard of review) led him to conclude that the decision was reasonable and correct. This does not meet the criteria laid down in Zazai v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FCA 89, [2004] F.C.J. No. 389, Varela v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2009 FCA 145, [2010] 1 F.C.R. 129, Lai v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 FCA 21, [2015] F.C.J. No. 125. Thus there is no right of appeal, and the appeal will therefore be dismissed. [3] Once again, it should be noted that the certification of a question plays an important part in the administration of the Act: see Varela, above, at paragraphs 22 to 29. It is not a favour that a trial judge may grant as he or she sees fit. Certifying a question without dealing with it in the reasons for judgment serves only to give appellants false hope. “J.D. Denis Pelletier” J.A. Certified true translation Erich Klein FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DoCKET: A-461-14 STYLE OF CAUSE: JEAN-PIERRE KENGURUKA v. THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, QuEbec DATE OF HEARING: septembER 17, 2015 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON j.a. PELLETIER J.A. GAUTHIER J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: PELLETIER J.A. APPEARANCES: Claudette Menghile Susan Ramirez FOR THE appeLlant Caroline Doyon Guillaume Bigaouette FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Claudette Menghile FOR THE appeLlant William F. Pentney Deputy Attorney General of Canada for THE RESPONDENT