Tonda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
- Citation
- 2020 FC 67
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 21 January 2020
- Posture
- Judicial Review of Immigration Appeal Division Decision / Federal Court Judgment on Remittal for Redetermination
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Federal Court
- Decision
- 21 January 2020
- Posture
- Judicial Review of Immigration Appeal Division Decision / Federal Court Judgment on Remittal for Redetermination
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Federal Court allowed the admission of the foreign simple adoption judgment as new evidence because the determinative issue was the tribunal's jurisdiction; the IAD's decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction was set aside and the matter was returned to the IAD to determine, in the first instance, whether the Gabonese adoption renders the child a dependent child under IRPA and thus falls within s.64(3) exception.
Court disposition
Application for judicial review allowed; IAD decision set aside; matter remitted to IAD for redetermination of jurisdiction and, if appropriate, merits
Orders
- The application for judicial review is allowed
- The decision of the Immigration Appeal Division dated March 12, 2019 is set aside and the matter is returned to the Immigration Appeal Division for redetermination
02
Material facts
Parties
Julie Oganda Tonda
Applicant Counsel: François Kasenda KabembaThe Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
Respondent Counsel: Carolyn PhanAmounts and remedies
- Judgment Year: 2,020
- Hearing Year: 2,019
03
Procedural history
Posture
Judicial Review of Immigration Appeal Division Decision / Federal Court Judgment on Remittal for Redetermination
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Immigration Appeal Division had jurisdiction under s.64(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to hear the appeal in respect of a sponsored orphan who may have been adopted
- 02
Whether the Federal Court should admit new evidence (a foreign simple adoption judgment) when assessing the tribunal's jurisdiction
- 03
Whether the matter should be remitted to the IAD for redetermination of jurisdiction and, if appropriate, the merits
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant submitted a foreign simple adoption judgment (Gabon, Jan 22, 2019) establishing that the sponsored child is her dependent child and argued that this evidence gives the IAD jurisdiction to hear the appeal; filed new evidence before the Court and sought its admission to determine jurisdiction.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the IAD correctly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under s.64(3) IRPA because an orphaned niece does not fall within the statutory exception and that the IAD's decision should stand.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s.64(3)
No appeal lies from a decision based on inadmissibility for misrepresentation except where the foreign national is the sponsor’s spouse, common-law partner or child (statutory jurisdictional rule)
- 02
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 301 v Montréal (City), [1997] 1 SCR 793; McFadden v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 360
A reviewing court will not generally admit fresh evidence not before the administrative decision-maker, but may do so for issues of procedural fairness or where the grounds of review raise a jurisdictional error
- 03
Principle articulated in judgment (Federal Court)
Specialized administrative tribunals are best placed to assess the legal effect of foreign domestic orders within the tribunal’s statutory mandate; remittal is appropriate when factual or legal determinations fall within the tribunal’s expertise
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Federal Court allowed the admission of the foreign simple adoption judgment as new evidence because the determinative issue was the tribunal's jurisdiction; the IAD's decision dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction was set aside and the matter was returned to the IAD to determine, in the first instance, whether the Gabonese adoption renders the child a dependent child under IRPA and thus falls within s.64(3) exception.
Obiter and limits
- The parties did not propose and no issues of general importance arise for certification
- The adoption judgment was relevant to the jurisdictional issue and therefore admissible as new evidence in these circumstances
Court disposition
Application for judicial review allowed; IAD decision set aside; matter remitted to IAD for redetermination of jurisdiction and, if appropriate, merits
- The application for judicial review is allowed
- The decision of the Immigration Appeal Division dated March 12, 2019 is set aside and the matter is returned to the Immigration Appeal Division for redetermination
Source and reliance status
Federal Court · 21 January 2020
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· 21 January 2020
Tonda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2020-01-21 Neutral citation 2020 FC 67 File numbers IMM-2108-19 Decision Content Date: 20200121 Docket: IMM-2108-19 Citation: 2020 FC 67 [UNREVISED CERTIFIED ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, January 21, 2020 PRESENT: The Associate Chief Justice Gagné BETWEEN:
JULIE OGANDA TONDA Applicant and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] Julie Oganda Tonda is applying for judicial review of the decision of the Immigration Appeal Division [IAD], dated March 12, 2019, in which the IAD dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to subsection 64(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act [IRPA], which provides as follows: 64 (3) No appeal may be made under subsection 63(1) in respect of a decision that was based on a finding of inadmissibility on the ground of misrepresentation, unless the foreign national in question is the sponsor’s spouse, common-law partner or child. [2] First of all, I am of the view that the IAD was correct in finding that Ms. Tonda’s orphaned niece, who is the subject of her sponsorship application, does not fall within the exception in this provision. [3] However, Ms. Tonda filed before the Court, as new evidence, a judgment granting simple adoption of the child Oganda Victoria (the subject of the sponsorship application by Ms. Tonda and her husband), rendered by the court of first instance of Libreville, Gabonese Republic, and dated January 22, 2019. [4] While the reviewing court will, in principle, refuse to consider any evidence that was not before the administrative decision maker, it may do so when deciding a question of procedural fairness, or when the grounds for review are based on some jurisdictional error (Canadian Union of Public
Employees, Local 301 v Montréal (City), [1997] 1 SCR 793, at para 86; McFadden v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 360, at para 15). [5] Since the only issue currently before the Court is whether the IAD had jurisdiction to hear Ms. Tonda’s appeal, and since the new evidence is relevant to the analysis of that issue, it is allowed. [6] That said, as a specialized administrative tribunal, the IAD is in the best position to determine whether the simple adoption judgment rendered on January 22, 2019, by the Gabonese Court is such as to make Victoria Ms. Tonda’s dependent child within the meaning of the IRPA. The matter is therefore returned to the IAD for redetermination on the issue of its jurisdiction and, if appropriate, on the merits of the appeal. [7] The parties did not propose any questions of general importance for certification, and no such question arises from the facts of this case. JUDGMENT in IMM-2108-19 THIS COURT ORDERS as follows: The application for judicial review is allowed; The decision of the Immigration Appeal Division, dated March 12, 2019, is set aside, and the matter is returned to the Immigration Appeal Division for redetermination. “Jocelyne Gagné” Associate Chief Justice Certified true translation This 31st day of January 2020. Michael Palles, Reviser
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-2108-19 STYLE OF CAUSE: JULIE OGANDA TONDA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 27, 2019 JUDGMENT AND REASONS: GAGNÉ A.C.J. DATED: JANUARY 21, 2020 APPEARANCES: François Kasenda Kabemba
FOR THE APPLICANT Carolyn Phan
FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Cabinet François K. Law Office Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario
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.