TA4-07779

TA4-07779

Because the Minister's disclosure had been properly provided and the claimant, through his counsel, failed to attend and refused to proceed without adequate explanation or timely attempt to secure substitute counsel, the claimant was in default under s.168(1) IRPA and the claim was properly abandoned; the requested adjournment was denied as the delay was attributable to counsel's lack of due diligence.

Citation
TA4-07779
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX - XXXXX); Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection (de Novo) / Abandonment/show Cause Hearing Following Adjournment and Remittal From Federal Court
Outcome
The Refugee Protection Division declares the claim abandoned under section 168(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and abandons the claim of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX - XXXXX).
Legal Topics
Abandonment, Exclusion (article 1 F(b)), Disclosure and Service, Adjournment, Counsel Conduct, Remittal
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Abandonment Exclusion (article 1 F(b)) Disclosure and Service Adjournment Counsel Conduct +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX - XXXXX)

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection (de Novo) / Abandonment/show Cause Hearing Following Adjournment and Remittal From Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's proceeding should be declared abandoned under s.168(1) IRPA due to counsel's failure to proceed
  2. 2 Whether the Minister's disclosure was properly before the Division and whether an adjournment was warranted
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is bound by the actions and preparedness of his counsel

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Minister's disclosure had been properly provided and the claimant, through his counsel, failed to attend and refused to proceed without adequate explanation or timely attempt to secure substitute counsel, the claimant was in default under s.168(1) IRPA and the claim was properly abandoned; the requested adjournment was denied as the delay was attributable to counsel's lack of due diligence.

Court Disposition

The Refugee Protection Division declares the claim abandoned under section 168(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and abandons the claim of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX - XXXXX).

Orders

  • The claim of XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX (a.k.a. XXXXX XXXXX - XXXXX) is abandoned pursuant to s.168(1) IRPA