Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Tonda v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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 Kabemba

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Respondent Counsel: Carolyn Phan

Amounts and remedies

  • Judgment Year: 2,020
  • Hearing Year: 2,019

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Judicial Review of Immigration Appeal Division Decision / Federal Court Judgment on Remittal for Redetermination

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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)

  2. 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

  3. 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.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 21 January 2020

2020 FC 67

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

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 301 v Montréal (City), [1997] 1 SCR 793

Case cited

McFadden v Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 360

Case cited

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, s.64(3)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.