Date: 19990531 Docket: IMM-980-97
BETWEEN:
KASSONGO TUNDA (Alias KIZUZI DIBAYULA)
Applicant
AND
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
TEITELBAUM, J:
[1] On the 29t' of July 1998, the Judicial Administrator for the Federal Court Trial Division issued an Order in which it is stated "que l'audition de la présente affaire [a judicial review of an administrator's decision dated January 16, 1997] ait lieu devant cette Cour au 30, rue McGill, dans la ville de Montréal, Québec, le mercredi 9ième jour de décembre 1998 à 10:00 heures du matin".
[2] It therefore is obvious that counsel for the applicant had more than four months to prepare for the hearing.
Page: 2
[3] A little more than two days before the hearing, counsel for the applicant filed an application in order to obtain the issuance of a subpoena ordering the Chief Justice of Canada to appear at 9:00 a.m., December 9, 1998in Montreal at the Federal Court to give evidence.
[4] On December 7, 1998, Me Richard Morneau, Prothonorary, dismissed the application with costs fixed at the sum of $350.00 to be paid forthwith.
The Prothonotary's decision states:
[1] Hormis le fait que cette requête ne soulève pas les règles 316 et 317(1) des Règles de la Cour fédérale (1998) (les règles), il y a lieu de considérer de façon plus centrale que cette requête est tardive et que le procureur du requérant, aux yeux de la Cour, n'a point besoin de tenter d'impliquer dans les faits la Cour suprême et son juge en chef pour présenter et pour débattre des arguments constitutionnels subsidiaires qu'il entend soulever lors de l'audition au mérite de la demande de contrôle judiciaire de son client qui doit se tenir dans deux jours.
[2] Dans ce sens, je vois cette requête comme tardive, abusive et vexatoire.
Pour ces motifs, et après avoir donné au procureur du requérant la possibilité d'être entendu conformément au paragraphe 404(2) des règles, cette requête est rejetée avec dépens que la Cour fixe à 350 $suivant la règle 401(1). Conformément à la règle 401(2) et à la règle 404(1), ces dépens devront être payés personnellement par le procureur du requérant et ce, sans délai.
Page: 3
[6] The applicant and his counsel appeal the said decision to a judge of the Trial Division.
[7] After hearing from counsel acting for the applicant (Me Sloan) and Me Le Brun on his own behalf, I dismissed the appeal from the Prothonotary's decision except for the issue of costs in the sum of $350.00 which I took under reserve.
[8] The decision made by the Prothonotary in dismissing the applicant's request for a subpoena is a discretionary one and unless I have evidence that the Prothonotary erred in law, I should not interfere with his decision.
[9] It is obvious the Prothonotary did not err in refusing to allow the issuance of a subpoena.
[10] In judicial review applications, one does not make evidence with oral testimony except under exceptional circumstances. Evidence is made by affidavit (Rule 316).
[11] 1 have no evidence before me that special circumstances exist to warrant the calling of a witness to testify in Court. Nothing was shown to me that the Prothonotary had any evidence put to him of exceptional circumstances.
Page: 4
[12] Pursuant to Rule 404 which reads:
404. (1) Where; costs in a proceeding are incurred improperly or without reasonable cause or are wasted by undue delay or other misconduct or default, the Court may make an order against any solicitor whom it considers to be responsible, whether personally or through a servant or agent,
(a) directing the solicitor personally pay the costs of a party to the proceeding; or
(b) disallowing the costs between the solicitor and the solicitor's client.
404. (1) Lorsque, dans une instance, des frais ont été engagés abusivement ou sans raison valable ou que des frais ont été occasion:lés du fait d'un retard injustifié ou de quelque autre inconduite ou manquement, la Cour peut rendre; !.'une des ordonnances suivantes ..outre l'avocat qu'elle considère comme responsable, qu'il s'agisse de ~:.-esponsabilité personnelle ou de responsabilité du fait de ses préposés ou mandataires
a) une ordonnance enjoignant à l'avocat de payer lui-même les dépens de toute partie à l'instance,
une ordonnance refusant d'accorder les dépens entre l'avocat et son client.
(2) No order under subsection (1) shall be made against a solicitor unless the solicitor has been given an opportunity to be heard.
(2) La Cour ne rend une ordonnance contre un avocat en vertu du paragraphe (1) que si elle lui a donné la possibilité de se faire entendre.
(3) The Court may order that notice of an order against a solicitor made under subsection (1) be given to the solicitor's client in a manner specified by the Court.
(3) La Cour peut ordonner que le client de l'avocat contre qui une ordonnance est rendue en vertu du paragraphe (1) en soit avisé de la manière qu'elle précise.
the Prothonotary ordered counsel for the applicant to pay costs forthwith which costs he
fixed at $350.00.
[13] It is obvious that the Prothonotary, from a reading of his decision, was satisfied that the request for the subpoena was a frivolous proceeding. I am in total agreement. Counsel for the applicant is an experienced lawyer dealing in judicial review applications involving refugee claimants. Surely, he knew or ought to have known that evidence is
Page: 5
made by affidavit. There is no evidence that from July 1998 to December 1998 he made any effort to obtain an affidavit to make the evidence he wanted to present to the Court. In fact, he admits he made no attempt to do so.
[14] In addition, to wait for "the last minute" in the circumstances of a judicial review where it is not the norm to have oral evidence is, to say the least, an abuse of the legal process.
[15] 1 see no reason to interfere with the Prothonotary's decision of December 7, 1998.
[16] The appeal is dismissed.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario May 31, 1999
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-980-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: Kassongo Tunda (Alias Kizuzu Dibayula) - et -
Le Ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l'immigration
PLACE OF HEARING: Montreal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: le 17 mai 1999 REASONS FOR ORDER OF TEITELBAUM J. DATED: May 31, 1999
APPEARANCES:
Me Michel Le Brun Ne William Sloan
FOR THE APPLICANT
Me Jocelyne Murphy
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD:
Me Michel Le Brun Montreal, Quebec
Me William Sloan Montreal, Quebec
FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT Deputy Attorney General of Canada