CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Immigration Practice |
Brissett v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-3464-02
2002 FCT 971, Blanchard J.
13/9/02
5 pp.
Motion for order of mandamus directing Appeal Division of Immigration and Refugee Board (Appeal Division) to furnish written reasons for decision dismissing applicant's motion to reinstate appeal of deportation--Appeal Division informing parties written reasons not being issued because not requirement under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act-- Applicant contending written reasons required under Act, s. 169(b)--Preliminary matter: Appeal Division not named in application for judicial review and applicant not seeking leave of Court to add Appeal Division as party--Court not entertaining relief of mandamus against non-party--Applicant arguing Court has jurisdiction to order mandamus on interlocutory motion--Mandamus being extraordinary remedy, Federal Court Trial Division having exclusive jurisdiction under Federal Court Act, s. 18(1)--Mandamus not interim relief but finally determining issue: Attorney General of Canada v. Gould, [1984] 1 F.C. 1133 (C.A)--Purpose of interlocutory injunction preservation or restoration of status quo, not giving of remedy--Judicial review proceeding not before Court and required under Federal Court Act, s. 18(3) for Court to grant relief sought--Motion dismissed without prejudice to applicant to apply for judicial review naming appropriate party--Motion for extension of time to file application record in main application granted on terms-- Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 169(b)--Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, ss. 18(1) (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 4), 18(3) (as am. idem).