Ottawa, Ontario, March 7th, 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE HENEGHAN
BETWEEN:
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] Mr. Hung Pong Man (the "Applicant") submitted a notice of motion in writing, pursuant to the Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106 (the "Rules") on January 31, 2005, seeking reconsideration of the Order issued on January 20, 2005, in which the application for judicial review in this matter was dismissed and no question of general importance was certified. The Applicant's notice of motion was brought pursuant to Rule 369(1) and Rule 397(1) of the Rules.
[2] By written submissions dated February 7, 2005, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor General of Canada (the "Respondents") presented their arguments in opposition to the Applicant's notice of motion.
[3] Rule 369 provides for the presentation of a notice of motion to be dealt with on the basis of written submissions and without an oral hearing. Rule 397 authorizes a party to seek reconsideration of an order made by the Court in disposing of a matter and provides as follows:
| 397. (1) Within 10 days after the making of an order, or within such other time as the Court may allow, a party may serve and file a notice of motion to request that the Court, as constituted at the time the order was made, reconsider its terms on the ground that (a) the order does not accord with any reasons given for it; or (b) a matter that should have been dealt with has been overlooked or accidentally omitted. |
|
397. (1) Dans les 10 jours après qu'une ordonnance a été rendue ou dans tout autre délai accordé par la Cour, une partie peut signifier et déposer un avis de requête demandant à la Cour qui a rendu l'ordonnance, telle qu'elle était constituée à ce moment, d'en examiner de nouveau les termes, mais seulement pour l'une ou l'autre des raisons suivantes : a) l'ordonnance ne concorde pas avec les motifs qui, le cas échéant, ont été donnés pour la justifier; b) une question qui aurait dû être traitée a été oubliée ou omise involontairement. |
[4] The essence of the Applicant's argument on this motion for reconsideration is that the Court failed to address, in its Reasons for Order, certain arguments advanced during the hearing of the application for judicial review on October 27, 2004, concerning the best interests of the Applicant's children.
[5] According to the decision in Martin v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1999), 162 F.T.R. 127 (T.D.), Rule 397 does not authorize the Court to entertain a motion which is in the nature of an appeal of its own decision.
[6] The Reasons for Order, dated January 20, 2005, insofar as they address the arguments raised about the best interests of the children, speak for themselves. Having regard to the criteria identified in Rule 397(1) for reconsideration of an Order, I am not persuaded that there is any basis for reconsideration of the Order in this case.
[7] The motion for reconsideration is dismissed, no order as to costs.
ORDER
[8] The motion for reconsideration is dismissed, no order as to costs.
"E. Heneghan"
J.F.C.
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-896-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: HUNG PONG MAN v. MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario, Notice of Motion in writing
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER: The Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan
DATED: March 7, 2005
COUNSEL:
Mr. Darryl W. Larson
for the Applicant
Ms. Esta Resnick
for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Embarkation Law Group
Vancouver, British Columbia for the Applicant
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the Respondent