A-32-78
Minister of Employment and Immigration Canada
and Director, Canada Immigration Centre,
Quebec Region (Appellants)
v.
Adelino Rodrigues and Dame Michelin Thibeault
(Respondents)
Court of Appeal, Pratte and Le Dain JJ. and Hyde
D.J.—Montreal, January 9, 1979.
Immigration — Appeal from Trial Division's decision stay
ing all proceedings relating to inquiry conducted on Rodrigues
— Trial Judge's decision based on ground that s. 50(1)(b) of
the Federal Court Act conferred discretionary power to order
stay of proceedings if in interest of justice — Whether or not
appeal should be allowed — Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970
(2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 50(1)(b).
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
C. Joyal for appellants.
Akos de S. Muszka, Q.C. for respondents.
SOLICITORS:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
appellants.
Akos de S. Muszka, Q.C., Outremont, for
respondents.
The following is the English version of the
reasons for judgment of the Court delivered orally
by
PRATTE J.: This appeal is from a decision of the
Trial Division which ordered appellants to stay all
proceedings relating to an inquiry conducted on
Adelino Rodrigues pursuant to the Immigration
Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-2.
On August 8, 1977 respondent Rodrigues, who
had just been arrested on suspicion of being a
person described in section 18(1)(e)(vi) of the
Immigration Act,' then in effect, was told that an
inquiry would be held the following day to deter
mine whether he was entitled to remain in Canada,
or whether a deportation order would have to be
made against him. The following day, the inquiry
was adjourned. A few days later respondent
Micheline Thibeault, who had married respondent
Rodrigues some months earlier, filed with the
Department of Immigration a form in which she
asked, as a sponsor, that her husband be admitted
to Canada as an immigrant. This request was
denied, and respondent Micheline Thibeault
appealed pursuant to section 17 of the Immigra
tion Appeal Board Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-3. Coun
sel for respondent Thibeault and respondent
Rodrigues, whose inquiry had still not taken place
at that time, then submitted to the Trial Division
an application for a writ of prohibition requiring
appellants to stay all proceedings. This was the
application allowed by the judgment a quo, which
ordered appellants
to stay any proceeding and decision in case No 2495-6-02536,
namely the case of Adelino Rodrigues, until such time as the
Immigration Appeal Board has decided applicant's appeal
relating to the admission to Canada of her husband Adelino
Rodrigues.
The Trial Judge did not reach this decision
because he found that the Special Inquiry Officer
had exceeded his jurisdiction, or had acted unlaw
fully in conducting the inquiry regarding respond
ent Rodrigues. It is clear that respondent Thi-
beault's application for the admission of
respondent Rodrigues could have no effect on the
legality of Rodrigues' presence in Canada before
the authorities had approved the application for
admission. The Trial Judge only ordered appel
lants to stay all proceedings in the case at bar
because he considered that section 50(1)(b) of the
' This provision read as follows:
18. (1) ...
(e) any person, other than a Canadian citizen or a person
with Canadian domicile, who
(vi) entered Canada as a non-immigrant and remains
therein after ceasing to be a non-immigrant or to be in
the particular class in which he was admitted as a
non-immigrant,
Federal Court Act 2 , R.S.C. 1970 (2nd Supp.), c.
10, conferred on him a discretionary power to
order such a stay if it was in the interest of justice
to stay the proceedings.
In the opinion of the Court this decision is
incorrect. Section 50 allows the Court to stay
proceedings which are in progress in the Court
itself; it does not allow the Court to stay proceed
ings in progress before some other tribunal.
It follows that, ordinarily, the appeal should be
allowed. In the case at bar, however, that is not so
because the parties have informed the Court that
this appeal is now devoid of any practical signifi
cance, since the Immigration Appeal Board has
already ruled on the appeal of respondent Miche-
line Thibeault. In these circumstances, and solely
for this reason, the appeal will be dismissed with
out costs.
2 According to this provision:
50. (1) The Court may, in its discretion, stay proceedings
in any cause or matter,
(b) where for any other reason it is in the interest of
justice that the proceedings be stayed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.