Narvey v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Narvey v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2001-03-22 Neutral citation 2001 FCA 85 File numbers A-726-98 Decision Content Date: 20010322 Docket: A-726-98 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 85 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: KENNETH M. NARVEY Appellant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and VLADIMIR KATRIUK Respondents Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on Thursday, March 15, 2001. JUDGMENT delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on Thursday, March 22, 2001. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: MALONE J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. SHARLOW J.A. Date: 20010322 Docket: A-726-98 Neutral citation: 2001 FCA 85 CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MALONE J.A. BETWEEN: KENNETH M. NARVEY Appellant - and - THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION and VLADIMIR KATRIUK Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT MALONE J.A. The appellant had sought to stay the release of a citizenship revocation decision of Nadon J. on the grounds that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on his part. The matter was heard by another Judge of the Trial Division who refused the stay.[1] The appellant now appeals that decision to this Court. Subsequent to the Motions Judge's refusal to grant the stay, Nadon J. issued his decision. There is therefore nothing left to stay. The appeal is obviously moot. Furthermore, Nadon J. found that the respondent Mr. Katriuk had obtained his citizenship by fraud, false representation or by knowingly concealing material circumstances. The appellant says that he is satisfied with that decision. Moreover, the appellant stated in his written submissions to this Court and confirmed orally that he erred in apprehending bias on the part of Nadon J. Not only is the appeal moot, the appellant would himself seem to have no interest in any further proceedings. Nonetheless, the appellant asks this Court to correct errors that he asserts the Motions Judge made in his reasons. I decline to do so. It is fundamental that an appellant appeals from a judgment, not reasons for judgment. While an appellate court will correct errors in the reasons of a lower court even if the appeal is dismissed, this will occur in circumstances where the appeal is not moot. This is not a case in which the Court should exercise its discretion to decide a matter that is moot under any of the criteria set out in Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342. In finding that this appeal should be dismissed. I express no opinion on the comments of the Motions Judge with reference to the status of the appellant or the Coalition of Concerned Congregations in these proceedings. I would dismiss the appeal with costs. (B. Malone) J.A. I agree Marshall Rothstein I agree Karen Sharlow J.A. [1] Court File No. T-2408-96.