Angela Marinos

The applicant, whose Canadian citizenship had been revoked due to his complicity in war crimes, sought a permanent or temporary stay of ongoing admissibility proceedings before the Immigration Division.

He argued that the Minister's late and allegedly misleading disclosure of materials related to the Deschênes Report constituted an abuse of process.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that the Immigration Division should first consider and make findings on the disclosure issues and the alleged abuse of process.

The Court also held that the alternative request for a temporary stay pending a reopening application before the Governor in Council exceeded the relief sought in the underlying application for judicial review.

This is an assessment of costs following an order granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiffs' action.

The plaintiffs argued that the parties had settled costs at $8,000 and that their former counsel's trust account had been frozen, preventing payment.

The Assessment Officer held that he lacked jurisdiction to enforce the purported settlement or order access to the trust account, noting that an assessment officer's duty is to assess costs, not award them or consider a party's financial circumstances.

The defendants' bill of costs was assessed, with some claims disallowed because the underlying orders were silent on costs, and allowed in the total amount of $9,393.79.

The applicant sought a stay of his upcoming admissibility hearing before the Immigration Division, arguing that his advanced age, hearing impairment, and the COVID-19 pandemic made communication and preparation impossible.

The Federal Court found that the applicant met the elevated threshold for demonstrating a serious issue, overcoming the prematurity principle.

The Court held that proceeding as scheduled risked irreparable harm to the applicant's participatory rights.

The Court granted a short stay of approximately six weeks.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order staying the commencement of his admissibility hearing before the Immigration Division until his application for leave and judicial review could be determined.

The applicant argued that his advanced age and medical frailty constituted exceptional circumstances justifying an exception to the prematurity principle.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to meet the elevated threshold to show a serious issue regarding the existence of exceptional circumstances, and noted that the applicant's health might be best served by proceeding without delay rather than fragmenting the proceedings.

The respondent Minister brought a motion to strike an application for leave and judicial review.

The applicant, a 96-year-old facing an admissibility hearing, sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Immigration Division denying a request to postpone the scheduling of the hearing.

The applicant argued that his advanced age, medical conditions, and communication challenges compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic warranted early judicial intervention.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion to strike, concluding that while the threshold for exceptional circumstances is high, the application is not bereft of any possibility of success.

The Respondent brought a motion to strike the Applicant's application for leave and for judicial review on the basis of prematurity.

The application challenges an interlocutory decision of the Immigration Division determining that it had jurisdiction to conduct an admissibility hearing.

The Court dismissed the motion to strike, concluding that it was not bereft of any possibility of success because the Applicant's arguments regarding exceptional circumstances warranting departure from the prematurity principle, based on his advanced age and medical conditions, could potentially succeed.