FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION |
Mabrouki v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-3704-03
2003 FC 1104, Blais J.
25/9/03
10 pp.
Motion by plaintiff asking Trial Division judge to quash order by Morneau P., on August 12, 2003 dismissing motion for confidentiality and for in camera hearing made by plaintiff --Counsel for plaintiff suggested inconsistency between immigration rules providing for confidentiality and Federal Court Rules providing immigration cases be heard publicly-- No contradiction: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act provides for automatic confidentiality, while Federal Court Rules 1998, provide hearings and documents public unless in camera hearing ordered on motion, and documents treated as confidential--Decision accordingly discretionary one by Court based on facts and arguments submitted to it, as herein --Counsel for plaintiff further suggested prothonotary had no jurisdiction to make decision as this jurisdiction conferred on judge, not prothonotary--Counsel for plaintiff did not persuade Court application filed for hearing to be in camera and for documents to be kept confidential constituting "interim order" pursuant to r. 50(1)(j) and Federal Court's Act, s. 18.2--Order made by prothonotary actually "interlocutory order" and, as such, prothonotaries make significant number of interlocutory decisions every day-- Prothonotaries regularly act on behalf of Federal Court and render significant number of interlocutory decisions in areas falling within their jurisdiction--Prothonotaries seldom act in immigration matters except to make interlocutory decisions-- R. 50(1)(j) applying to decision made pursuant to motion for interim order, not to motion for interlocutory decision--In view of significant difference between two definitions, counsel for plaintiff did not persuade Court prothonotary exceeded his jurisdiction and accordingly this argument should be dismissed--Must still consider if order appealable--In Yogalingam v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2003), 27 Imm. L.R. (3d) 198 (F.C.T.D.), held motions judge did not have jurisdiction to hear appeal from interlocutory decision by prothonotary--In case at bar judge did not have jurisdiction to hear appeal, pursuant to peremptory provisions of Act, s. 72(2)(e)--Motion dismissed for want of jurisdiction--Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, R.S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 72(2)--Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7 ss. 1 (as am. by S.C. 2002, c. 8, s. 14), 18.2 (as enacted by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5)--Federal Court Rules 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 50(1) (as am. by SOR/2002-487, s. 8).