Date: 19991103
Docket: IMM-4830-99
BETWEEN:
MOHA RZIG
Applicant
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
and
MINISTÈRE DES RELATIONS AVEC LES CITOYENS ET DE L"IMMIGRATION
Third Party
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion by the applicant for an extension of the time limit to allow the applicant, Mr. Moha Rzig, to adequately prepare an application for judicial review.
[2] As noted, correctly, by the respondent"s counsel, this motion for an extension of time is supported only by the affidavit of the applicant"s counsel, Ms. Chantal Arsenault, who also prepared the arguments presented to the Court based on this affidavit, which is contrary to the provisions of Rule 82 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 .
[3] As noted by the respondent"s counsel, this is a major defect, since there is only one affidavit in the record, and the applicant did not deem fit to himself submit an affidavit in support of his motion.
[4] I note, furthermore, that to justify the motion for an extension of time by the applicant"s counsel there was no explanation for the time that elapsed between September 1, 1999 (the supposed date of receipt of the visa officer"s decision by the applicant) and September 30, 1999 (the date of service of the motion for an extension of time).
[5] The respondent"s counsel notes, again, and very appropriately, that on the basis that the presumed date of receipt of the decision was September 1, 1999, the applicant was still within the time limit for filing a notice of application under the provisions of Rule 301 and the appropriate form, in accordance with the Federal Court Rules, 1998 .
[6] Under that rule, the applicant need not at that stage file the documentation on which he intends to rely or to file an affidavit; only the notice under Rule 301 is required.
[7] Furthermore, the applicant, through his counsel, has completely failed to explain what serious ground he might have for filing an application for judicial review of the decision rendered by the immigration officer, Denis Carrière.
[8] In short, the applicant has been unable to provide any serious reason why he could not file an application for judicial review within the required time limit, or any serious ground on which an application for judicial review could be based.
[9] For these reasons, this application for an extension of the time limit is dismissed.
| Pierre Blais |
| J. |
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
November 3, 1999
Certified true translation
Bernard Olivier
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
| FILE NO: IMM-4830-99 |
| STYLE: MOHA RZIG v. MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
MOTION CONSIDERED WITHOUT PERSONAL APPEARANCE
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE COURT BY: BLAIS J.
DATED: NOVEMBER 3, 1999
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:
Chantal Arsenault for the Applicant
Caroline Doyon for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Chantal Arsenault for the Applicant
Montréal, Quebec
Morris Rosenberg for the Respondent
Deputy Attorney General of Canada