Magtouf v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Magtouf v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Justice Blais considered the certification request and properly concluded the question was not one of general importance under s.74(d) IRPA; therefore the claim that he refused to exercise jurisdiction is without merit and the appellant's notice of appeal must be struck.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2007 FCA 267
Parties
Appellant: Mustapha Magtouf; Respondent: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Certification Refusal; Motion to Strike Notice of Appeal; Motion Dealt With in Writing
Outcome
Respondent's motion allowed; appellant's notice of appeal struck with costs to respondent.
Legal Topics
Certification of Question of General Importance, Jurisdiction, Striking Notice of Appeal, Motions
Source Language
en
Immigration Law Administrative Law Appeal Certification of Question of General Importance Jurisdiction Striking Notice of Appeal Motions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mustapha Magtouf

Appellant

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Certification Refusal; Motion to Strike Notice of Appeal; Motion Dealt With in Writing

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court judge refused to exercise his jurisdiction by refusing to certify the question
  2. 2 Whether the question presented met the s.74(d) threshold of being of general importance
  3. 3 Whether the appeal may proceed despite refusal to certify

Ratio Decidendi

Justice Blais considered the certification request and properly concluded the question was not one of general importance under s.74(d) IRPA; therefore the claim that he refused to exercise jurisdiction is without merit and the appellant's notice of appeal must be struck.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion allowed; appellant's notice of appeal struck with costs to respondent.

Orders

  • Respondent's motion allowed
  • Appellant's notice of appeal struck