Date: 19980309 Docket: IMM-1709-97
BETWEEN:
PARAMAYOGAMANY MURUGAMOORTHY
Applicant
-and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
REED-J. -.
[1] The motion for reconsideration, dated February 16, 1998, will be dismissed, as there is no proper subject matter for reconsideration. In addition, I was stunned to see the statement that I pre-empted Mr. Berger's disclosure and explanation of the falsehoods to the Court, by raising these before he could do so. I recall, clearly, not raising the issue at the outset of the hearing because it has been my experience that when this kind of situation arises, counsel can call a client's falsity to the Court's
Page: 2 attention at the opening of the hearing (usually expressing some degree of embarrassment). My recollection of the hearing is exactly the same as that of counsel for the respondent, as set out in paragraph 16 of his submissions. Not only did counsel for the applicant not bring the falsehoods to my attention but, even after I had called them to his, he persisted in making oral argument in reliance on the false portions of the affidavit.
[2] I recognized in my reasons that Mr. Berger was not the applicant's counsel at the CRDD hearing. I recognized that counsel will not always know whether their clients are lying. However, counsel have an obligation to the Court as well as to their clients. Once counsel knows the client's story is false, he or she has an obligation to disclose that fact to the Court. None of us do our profession any kindness by loosening or forgetting the professional obligations to which it has long been subject. The fact that I did not order costs of any sort to be paid, either personally by counsel, on a solicitor-client basis, or otherwise, reflects the fact that I could not conclude that Mr. Berger had participated in the creation of a false affidavit. All that was clear was that there was a failure to disclose to the Court once the falseness was known.
[3] I return to the substance of the motion for reconsideration. Even if there was an error in one part of the translation, as alleged, this still does not explain the rest of the falsity in the affidavit (e.g., that she was not asked how she came to have the doll(s) in her possession, and that the panel assumed she had no trouble going out shopping).
Page: 3 Also, the translations that are put forward, as more correct than the original, are very stilted and literal, and are quoted out of the context of the whole. An affidavit from the original translator, that an error had been made, would be more convincing.
[4] Of a particularly troubling nature is the statement in the motion that the Court "entirely overlooked the fact that the transcript of the proceeding does not accurately translate the exact words spoken by the Applicant ...". The Court did not overlook the fact that there may possibly have been an error in one element of the translation. That possibility was never put to the Court, nor was there any documentation to support such before the Court.
[5] I did not order costs on the original application, I will not do so now.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
the motion is dismissed.
B. Reed
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO March 9, 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: IMM-1709-97
STYLE OF CAUSE: Paramayogamany Murugamoorthy v. M. C.1.
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
DATED: March 9, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: The Honourable Madame Justice Reed
| WRITTEN REPRESENTA BY: |
|
| Mr. Max Berger |
for the Applicant |
| Ms. Sudabeh Mashkuri |
for the Respondent |
| SOLICITORS OF RECORD: |
|
| Mr. Max Berger |
|
| Toronto, Ontario |
for the Applicant |
| Mr. George Thomson |
|
| Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
for the Respondent |