Date: 19981106
Docket: IMM-4182-98
MOZAMMEL HAQUE
NOËL MOZAMMEL
POONAM MOZAMMEL
RASHIDA AKTER
Demandeurs
- et -
LE MINISTRE
Défendeur
REASONS FOR ORDER
TEITELBAUM J.:
[1] The plaintiffs, by the present motion, appeal a decision of the Prothonotary dated October 5, 1998.
[2] The plaintiffs, on August 18, 1998, filed an application for leave and for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board dated July 20, 1998.
[3] Pursuant to Rule 10 of the Federal Court Immigration Rules, the plaintiffs shall, within 30 days of filing his or her application for leave and for judicial review, perfect his or her application by serving and filing an Application Record.
[4] Rule 10 reads as follows:
| 10.1 (1) The applicant shall perfect an application for leave by complying with subrule (2) (a) where the application sets out that the applicant has received the tribunal"s written reasons, within 30 days after filing the application; or (b) where the application sets out that the applicant has not received the tribunal"s written reasons, within 30 days after receiving either the written reasons, or the notice under paragraph 9(2)(b ), as the case may be. (2) The applicant shall serve on every respondent who has filed and served a notice of appearance, a record containing the following, on consecutively numbered pages, and in the following order (a) the application for leave, (b) the decision or order, if any, in respect of which the application is made, (c) the written reasons given by the tribunal, or the notice under paragraph 9(2)(b), as the case may be, (d) one or more supporting affidavits verifying the facts relied on by the applicant in support of the application, and (e) a memorandum of argument which shall set out concise written submissions of the facts and law relied upon by the applicant for the relief proposed should leave be granted, and file it, together with proof of service. |
10.1(1) Le demandeur met sa demande d"autorisation en état en se conformant au paragraphe (2) : a) s"il indique dans sa demande qu"il a reçu les motifs écrits du tribunal administratif, dans les 30 jours suivant le dépôt de sa demande; b) s"il indique dans sa demande qu"il n"a pas reçu les motifs écrits du tribunal administratif, dans les 30 jours suivant la réception soit de ces motifs, soit de l"avis envoyé par le tribunal administratif en application de l"alinéa 9(2)b ). (2) Le demandeur signifie à chacun des défendeurs qui a déposé et signifié un avis de comparution un dossier composé des pièces suivantes, disposées dans l"ordre suivant sur des pages numérotées consécutivement : a) la demande d"autorisation, b) la décision, l"ordonnance ou la mesure, s"il y a lieu, visée par la demande, c) les motifs écrits donnés par le tribunal administratif ou l"avis prévu à l"alinéa 9(2)b), selon les cas, d) un ou plusieurs affidavits établissant les faits invoqués à l"appui de sa demande, e) un mémoire énonçant succinctement les faits et les règles de droit invoqués par le demandeur à l"appui du redressement envisagé au cas où l"autorisation serait accordée, et le dépose avec la preuve de la signification. |
[5] In the event that a plaintiff fails to perfect his or her application pursuant to rule 10 of the Federal Court Immigration Rules, that person may apply for an extension of time.
[6] In the present case, the plaintiffs had to the 17th of September 1998 to perfect their Application Record but failed to do so.
[7] On the 18th of September 1998, one day after the thirty day limit period, the plaintiffs served upon the defendant and filed into the Court Registry on the 21st of September, 1998, an application pursuant to Rule 369 of the Federal Court Rules, an application for an extension of time.
[8] Attached to the plaintiffs" application for extension of time was the plaintiffs" perfected Application Record.
[9] The plaintiffs also filed the affidavit of Isabelle Limoges in which she explains why the plaintiffs failed to perfect their leave application and why it was one day late.
[10] It would appear from a reading of the affidavit of Me Limoges that the reason for the delay was the fact that a request was made for a transcript of the hearing tapes and then a request was made for the tapes themselves. Most important, I believe, the reason for the failure to file the perfected Application Record within the legal delays is found in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the Limoges affidavit.
| 9. Le 16 septembre 1998, j"ai ramassé les cassettes en début de matinée. |
| 10. Le même soir et le lendemain matin, Me William Sloan a écouté les cassettes, a préparé la transcription de certains extraits, et a rédigé so mémoire, sur son ordinateur èa la maison. |
| 11. Le 17 septembre 1998, en tentant d"imprimer ses données au bureau, nous avons constaté l"impossibilité d"accéder à la disquette. Pendant plus d"une heure nousa vons tenté par différents moyens d"accéder à la disquette sans succès. |
| 12. Me William Sloan a repris son mémoire et les transcriptions à partir de ses notes manuscrites, mais n"a pu les terminer à temps pour déposer dans le délai requis. |
[11] I am satisfied that the principal reason for being one day late in serving and filing the plaintiffs" Record is the fact that the computer of plaintiffs" counsel failed to properly function.
[12] The Rule 369 application came before the Prothonotary in Montreal and, on October 5th, 1998, he issued the following Order:
| Cette requête est rejetée sur la base de l"ensemble des motifs exprimés aux prétentions écrites déposées le 28 septembre 1998. |
| Si le procureur des demandeurs n"avait pas perdu la très grande majorité du délai imparti èa se préoccuper des questions de transcription et de cassettes, il aurait pu oeuvrer beaucoup plus tôt à parfaire le dossier de ses clients et éviter, ou surmonter à tout le moins, les difficultés de fin de parcours qu"il a éprouvées. |
[13] It appears evident from the Prothonotary"s decision, that he was convinced that because counsel for the plaintiffs spent too much time being concerned about obtaining a transcript of the Refugee hearing or the tapes of the hearing, that this was the cause of the plaintiffs" failure to serve and file their Record. In reading the Prothonotary"s decision, it appears he is of the view that had counsel for the plaintiffs not been concerned about the Refugee hearing, the fact that the computer of counsel breaking down would not have been a factor.
[14] In any event, on October 5, 1998, the plaintiffs" application for extension of time to file their perfected Application Record was denied.
[15] In verifying the Court file, there is to be found a document signed by a Court Registrar that indicates that the Prothonotary"s decision was communicated to counsel for the plaintiffs by telephone at 14:28 on the 5th day of October, 1998. The Court Registrar indicates that he spoke to counsel"s secretary and conveyed to her the Prothonotary"s decision.
[16] The actual written decision was received in plaintiffs" counsel"s office on October 16, 1998. In an affidavit sworn to by Serge Ménard, he states, in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4, the following:
| 2. Vendredi le 16 octobre 1998, j"ai reçu une enveloppe recommandée en provenance de la Cour fédérale, pour Me William Sloan, dans laquelle se trouvait la décision du protonotaire Me Richard Morneau, datée du 5 octobre 1998, dans le dossier IMM-4182-98. |
| 3. J"ai signé l"accusé de réception pour cet envelope. |
| 4. Sur l"enveloppe, don"t le numéro est RN 089 758 922 CA, le sceau de la poste est daté du 7 octobre 1998. |
[1] I am satisfied the copy of the written decision was sent to plaintiffs" counsel on October 7, 1998 and received in plaintiffs" counsel"s office on October 16, 1998.
[2] Plaintiffs" counsel filed an appeal from the Prothonotary"s decision and this on the 21st day of October 1998.
[3] As grounds for the present appeal, the plaintiffs state:
| 1. Le protonotaire a erré en droit dans son application des critères élaborés par cette Court en matière de prorogation de délais. |
| 2. Les deux jugements de cette Cour cités, de M. le juge Pinard, sont èa l"effet que la simple déclaration par la partie requiérante que la trqnscription lui est écessaire, est insuffisante pour motiver une prorogation de délai. |
| 3. Les demandeurs en cette cause ont déposé, comme pièce à l"appui de leur demande de prorogation, copie du Dossier des demandeurs à être produit, y compris la transcription partielle sur laquelle repose l"argument principal des demandeurs. |
| 4. Il ne s"agissait pas, ici, de demander une prorogation pour un motif spéculatif, voir le contenu éventuel des cassettes. Il ne s"agissait même pas d"attendre les cassettres. |
| 5. Le motif de la demande était que l"ordinateur du procureur des demandeurs a fait une fausse manoeuvre qui a rendu impossible l"impression de la transcription et du mémoire, déjà préparés la veille. |
| 6. Dans les jugements du juge Pinard, il n"y était aucunement question de demandes de prorogation de 24 heures pour déoser un Dossier déjà préparé, aavec transcriptions, ni encore moins de problèmes avec ordinateur. |
[4] Pursuant to Rule 51 of the Federal Court Rules, an order of a Prothonotary may be appealed by a motion to a judge of the Trial Division and this within a period of 10 days.
| 51. (1) An order of a prothonotary may be appealed by a motion to a judge of the Trial Division. (2) Notice of a motion under subsection (1) shall be (a) served within 10 days after the day on which the order under appeal was made and at least four days before the day fixed for hearing the motion; and (b) filed not later than two days before the day fixed for the hearing of the motion. |
51.(1) L"ordonnance du protonotaire peut être portée en appel par voie de requête présentée à un juge de la Section de première instance. (2) L"avis de la requête visée au paragraphe (1) est: a) signifié dans les 10 jours suivant la date de l"ordonnance visée par l"appel et au moins quatre jours avant la date prévue pour l"audition de la requête; b) déposé au moins deux jours avant la date de l"audition de la requête. |
[5] Counsel for defendant submits that the plaintiffs are out of time to file such an appeal as the delay of 10 days ended as of the 15th or at the latest, the 16th of October, 1998.
[6] Plaintiffs submit the affidavit of Isabelle Limoges, who, in addition to being a lawyer, acts as secretary for plaintiffs" counsel. She states, in her affidavit sworn to on October 25, 1998:
| 1. Je n"ai aucun souvenir d"avoir reçu un appel téléphonique, le ou vers le 5 octobre 1998, de la Cour fédérale dans le dossier IMM-4182-98, concernant la prorogation de délai. |
| 2. La politique du bureau est de toujours demander un fax lorsque l"on obtient des décisions dans les dossiers de la Cour fédérale. |
| 3. Me William Sloan n"a jamais été au courant de la décision du protonotaire dans le dossier IMM-4182-98, quant à la demande de prorogation de délai, avant le 16 octobre 1998. |
[7] It is interesting to note that she does not deny having received a telephone call from the Court on October 5, 1998 concerning the Prothonotary"s decision.
[8] I am satisfied that Isabelle Limoges did receive the telephone call but may have failed to communicate the message to plaintiffs" counsel.
[9] The two issues to be decided are:
| 1) Does the Court have jurisdiction to allow an appeal from a decision of a Prothonotary if more than 10 days have elapsed from the communication of the decision and |
| 2) If yes, are there grounds for reversing the Prothonotary"s decision? |
DISCUSSION
[10] On the issue of delay, I am satisfied that I have the jurisdiction to allow an appeal from a Prothonotary"s decision outside of the 10 day delay stipulated in Rule 51 of the Federal Court Rules (see Gunther R. Munzel, September 22, 1998, unreported, T-1045-98 at page 2 when Richard A.C.J. states "Rule 56 gives the Court power to dispense with compliance with a rule by a party. The moving party must demonstrate special circumstances justifying the issuance of such an order.").
[11] Let me first state that my reading of Rule 51(2) is to the effect that the Notice of Motion of appeal is to be served within 10 days after the day on which the order under appeal was made and communicated to the party who wishes to appeal the decision. The communication can be effected in various ways, such as, telephone as in the present case, or by fax or by letter. There may be other methods of communication as well.
[12] It would be difficult to appeal a decision that was not communicated to a party. Thus, even if Rule 51 does not speak of communication of a decision but only of the date the order under appeal was made, I am satisfied it must be a given that a party has to have a decision communicated to him/her or counsel and it is from that date that the delays begin to run.
[13] Rule 3 of the Federal Court Rules states:
| 3. These Rules shall be interpreted and applied so as to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on the merits. |
3. Les présentes règles sont interprétées et appliquées de façon à permettre d"apporter une solution au litige qui soit juste et la plus expéditive et économique possible. |
[14] Rule 8 of the Federal Court Rules states:
| 8.(1) On motion, the Court may extend or abridge a period provided by these Rules or fixed by an order. (2) A motion for an extension of time may be brought before or after the end of the period sought to be extended. (3) Unless the Court directs otherwise, a motion to the Court of Appeal or an extension of time shall be brought in accordance with rule 369. |
8.(1) La Cour peut, sur requête, proroger ou abréger tout délai prévu par les présentes règles ou fixé par ordonnance. (2) La requête visant la prorogation d"un délai peut être présentée avant ou après l"expiration du délai. (3) Sauf directives contraires de la Cour, la requête visant la prorogation d"un délai qui est présentée à la Cour d"appel doit l"être selon la règle 369. |
[15] I am satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice to allow the present appeal to proceed.
[16] It appears that counsel for plaintiffs was not aware of the Prothonotary"s decision until the 16th of October, 1998. He filed his appeal on October 21,1998. I am satisfied he did so as quickly as possible.
[17] The second issue is to determine if the Prothonotary erred in refusing an extension of time of a few days to allow the applicants to file the necessary perfected Record pursuant to Rule 10 of the Federal Court Immigration Rules.
[18] In the case of Mamadou Traoré v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration of Canada, IMM-5564-97, unreported, March 20,1998, Mr. Justice Pinard states, at pages 2 and 3:
| Il est évident que la décision du protonotaire porte sur une question ayant une influence déterminante sur l"issue du principal, l"absence de production du dossier du requérant entraînant effectivement le rejet de sa demande d"autorisation de présenter une demande de contrôle judiciaire. Cela est suffisant pour m"obliger, comme juge saisi du recours, à exercer mon propre pouvoir discrétionnaire (voir Canada c. Aqua-Gem Investments Ltd. , [1993] 2 C.F. 425, à la page 463). |
[19] I agree with Mr. Justice Pinard.
[20] I am satisfied that the Prothonotary erred in his decision from the specific facts of this case.
[21] From reading the Prothonotary"s decision, he appears not to give any consideration that the plaintiffs were only one day late in perfecting their Record. He also appears to not give any or much consideration that the main reason for the delay was that
counsel for the plaintiffs computer broke down which can be considered as an unusual event.
[22] Furthermore, the Prothonotary appears to not give any consideration to the merits of the plaintiffs" judicial review application. I understand that this may not be absolutely necessary in that he was not satisfied with the delay explanation, but, nevertheless, some consideration should be given to the merits of the application for leave.
[23] As the defendant states on page 7 of his Dossier de Réponse du Défendeur:
| 29. Il est bien établi que pour qu"une requête en prorogation de délai soit accordée, il faut que les demandeurs fassent la preuve: |
| 1) qu"il existe une explication raisonnable pour justifier leur défaut de respecter les délais impartis; |
| 2) que leur recours principal ait des chances de réussite; |
| 3) qu"ils aient été dans l"impossibilité d"agir pendant toute la durée du délai prévu. |
[24] I, with respect, do not see any analysis by the Prothonotary on the issue of the merits of the application for leave nor do I see, as I have said, any consideration regarding the breakdown of counsel"s computer. I also do not see any consideration of the serious prejudice that could be caused to the plaintiffs because of a delay of one day in filing the perfected Application Record.
[25] The appeal is allowed. The plaintiffs are permitted to serve and file the perfected Application Record within a delay of seven days of today"s date.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
J.F.C.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
November 6, 1998