Sharafaldin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
- Citation
- 2022 FC 997
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 6 July 2022
- Posture
- Judicial Review (mandamus) / Supplementary Judgment and Reasons
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 6 July 2022
- Posture
- Judicial Review (mandamus) / Supplementary Judgment and Reasons
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that no question of general importance under s.22.2(d) of the Citizenship Act was stated and approved the parties' agreed lump sum costs award of $65,000 as appropriate under Rule 22; the earlier judgment granting mandamus remains effective.
Court disposition
No question of general importance; costs awarded to the applicant in the lump sum amount of $65,000; prior judgment granting mandamus maintained.
Orders
- No question of general importance is stated.
- Costs are awarded to the applicant in the lump sum, all-inclusive amount of $65,000.
02
Material facts
Parties
MAHMOUD SHARAFALDIN
Applicant Counsel: Douglas CannonTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent Counsel: Helen ParkAmounts and remedies
- Costs Award: CAD 65,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Judicial Review (mandamus) / Supplementary Judgment and Reasons
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether questions of general importance exist for certification under paragraph 22.2(d) of the Citizenship Act
- 02
Whether costs in the lump sum amount of $65,000 are appropriate
- 03
Whether any other relief or issues remain following the primary judgment granting mandamus
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Applicant sought judicial review and an order of mandamus; submitted that no questions of general importance arose for certification and supported a lump sum costs award in the agreed amount of $65,000.
- Respondent
- Respondent did not propose any questions for certification, agreed that none arose, and agreed to the parties' proposed lump sum costs award of $65,000.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29, s 22.2(d)
Certification of questions requires identification of serious questions of general importance under paragraph 22.2(d) of the Citizenship Act.
- 02
Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, Rule 22
Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules governs assessment and awarding of costs including lump sum awards.
- 03
Canadian common law (jurisprudence)
Mandamus requires a clear right, a public duty to act, and no alternative remedy; remedy is discretionary.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that no question of general importance under s.22.2(d) of the Citizenship Act was stated and approved the parties' agreed lump sum costs award of $65,000 as appropriate under Rule 22; the earlier judgment granting mandamus remains effective.
Obiter and limits
- Neither party proposed any questions for certification and the court agreed that none arise.
- Having regard to relevant considerations, including Rule 22, the agreed lump sum award of $65,000 is appropriate.
Court disposition
No question of general importance; costs awarded to the applicant in the lump sum amount of $65,000; prior judgment granting mandamus maintained.
- No question of general importance is stated.
- Costs are awarded to the applicant in the lump sum, all-inclusive amount of $65,000.
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 6 July 2022
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Federal Court
Judgment· 6 July 2022
Sharafaldin v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2022-07-06 Neutral citation 2022 FC 997 File numbers T-64-19 Decision Content Date: 20220706 Docket: T-64-19 Citation: 2022 FC 997 Ottawa, Ontario, July 6, 2022 PRESENT: Mr. Justice Norris BETWEEN:
MAHMOUD SHARAFALDIN Applicant and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent
SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] On May 27, 2022, the Court released the Judgment and Reasons in this matter allowing the application for judicial review and granting an order of mandamus: see Sharafaldin v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 FC 768. Two issues were kept under reserve pending receipt of further submissions from the parties: (1) whether there are any serious questions of general importance for certification under paragraph 22.2(d) of the Citizenship Act, RSC 1985, c C-29; and (2) costs. [2] On June 10, 2022, the Court was informed that neither party proposed any questions for certification. I agree that none arise. [3] On June 30, 2022, the Court was informed that the parties had agreed on an award of costs in favour of the applicant in the lump sum amount of $65,000. Having regard to all of the relevant considerations, including Rule 22 of the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, I agree that a lump sum award in this amount is appropriate. SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT IN T-64-19 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that No question of general importance is stated. Costs are awarded to the applicant in the lump sum, all-inclusive amount of $65,000. “John Norris” Judge
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-64-19 STYLE OF CAUSE: MAHMOUD SHARAFALDIN v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING:
HELD BY VIDEOCONFERENCE DATE OF HEARING: June 10, 2021 SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT AND REASONS: NORRIS J. DATED: July 6, 2022 APPEARANCES: Douglas Cannon For The Applicant Helen Park For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Elgin, Cannon & Associates Vancouver, British Columbia For The Applicant Attorney General of Canada Vancouver, British Columbia For The Respondent
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.