Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Factums from the courts below, directions of the Court of Appeal, a motion to file fresh evidence and written representations on costs fall within the broad terms of pleadings/orders and may be part of Part II, but the correspondence and the table of concordance are neither evidence nor exhibits and constitute fresh evidence improperly included in Parts III and IV and must be struck; respondents are prohibited from referring to those documents or passages of their factum referring to them in oral argument.

Citation
2004 SCC 62
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada); Respondent/respondent on the Motion: Léon Mugesera; Respondent/respondent on the Motion: Gemma Uwamariya; Respondent/respondent on the Motion: Irenée Rutema; Respondent/respondent on the Motion: Yves Rusi; Respondent/respondent on the Motion: Carmen Nono; Respondent/respondent on the Motion: Mireille Urumuri; Respondent/respondent on the Motion: Marie‑Grâce Hoho
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Motion to Strike / Motion to Strike in the Supreme Court of Canada
Outcome
Motion granted in part; correspondence and table of concordance struck from the respondents' record; respondents ordered not to refer to them or to passages of their factum referring to them; no costs awarded.
Legal Topics
Motion to Strike, Record on Appeal, Fresh Evidence, Supreme Court Rules R.39(1)
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appellate Practice Evidence Motion to Strike Record on Appeal Fresh Evidence Supreme Court Rules R.39(1)

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Canada)

Appellant/applicant

Léon Mugesera

Respondent/respondent on the Motion

Gemma Uwamariya

Respondent/respondent on the Motion

Irenée Rutema

Respondent/respondent on the Motion

Yves Rusi

Respondent/respondent on the Motion

Carmen Nono

Respondent/respondent on the Motion

Mireille Urumuri

Respondent/respondent on the Motion

Marie‑Grâce Hoho

Respondent/respondent on the Motion

Procedural Posture

Motion to Strike / Motion to Strike in the Supreme Court of Canada

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether factums from courts below, directions of the Court of Appeal, a motion to file fresh evidence and written representations on costs are pleadings or orders within Rule 39(1)(b)
  2. 2 Whether correspondence and a table of concordance may be included in Parts III or IV of the respondent's record
  3. 3 Whether the contested documents constitute fresh evidence requiring striking and what remedy is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Factums from the courts below, directions of the Court of Appeal, a motion to file fresh evidence and written representations on costs fall within the broad terms of pleadings/orders and may be part of Part II, but the correspondence and the table of concordance are neither evidence nor exhibits and constitute fresh evidence improperly included in Parts III and IV and must be struck; respondents are prohibited from referring to those documents or passages of their factum referring to them in oral argument.

Court Disposition

Motion granted in part; correspondence and table of concordance struck from the respondents' record; respondents ordered not to refer to them or to passages of their factum referring to them; no costs awarded.

Orders

  • Motion granted in part
  • Correspondence and table of concordance struck from the respondents' record