Suzer v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Suzer v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)

Because the notice of application was filed after the 60-day deadline in s.14(5)(b) of the Citizenship Act and the Act does not authorize an extension, the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to hear the application and therefore correctly peremptorily struck out the notice of application.

Citation
2002 FCT 418
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Hasan Serhan Suzer; Defendant/applicant: The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Motion to Strike (rule 369)
Outcome
Motion allowed; notice of application struck out; no costs.
Legal Topics
Timeliness, Limitation Periods, Inherent Jurisdiction, Peremptory Striking, Extension of Time
Source Language
English
Immigration and Citizenship Administrative Law Federal Court Procedure Timeliness Limitation Periods Inherent Jurisdiction Peremptory Striking Extension of Time

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hasan Serhan Suzer

Plaintiff/respondent

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Motion to Strike (rule 369)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction to extend the 60-day appeal/application deadline in s.14(5)(b) of the Citizenship Act
  2. 2 Whether the court can rely on inherent jurisdiction to grant an extension of time
  3. 3 Whether the notice of application should be peremptorily struck out for lack of jurisdiction and no chance of success

Ratio Decidendi

Because the notice of application was filed after the 60-day deadline in s.14(5)(b) of the Citizenship Act and the Act does not authorize an extension, the Federal Court had no jurisdiction to hear the application and therefore correctly peremptorily struck out the notice of application.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed; notice of application struck out; no costs.

Orders

  • The motion is allowed
  • The notice of application filed by the plaintiff on December 6, 2001, is peremptorily struck out