Jebanayagam v. Canada ( Solicitor General )
IMM-5156-93
Muldoon J.
30/9/94
10 pp.
"Motion for judgment" on consent allowing application for judicial review of CRDD decision applicant not Convention refugee -- Applicant, Tamil from north of Sri Lanka, arriving in Colombo, deliberately neglecting to register with local police as heard some registrants killed, disappeared -- Went to lodge frequented by young Tamils from north -- Colombo police concerned lest newly arriving young northern Tamils be members of terrorist organization LTTE[cad 211]Applicant, along with 15 other Tamils, arrested, detained, beaten until father securing freedom by bribing police officer -- CRDD finding valid internal flight alternative in Colombo -- Motion for judgment dismissed -- Review of Immigration and Refugee Board's file revealing CRDD's decision not so hopelessly error filled Minister ought not to argue it -- Immigration legislation, Immigration and Refugee Board's hearings, determinations public law -- Public law matter of State's laws of general application for public benefit -- In terms of immigration and refugee law, public expecting adjudicatory system to operate fairly, without bias, for refugee claimants and for Canada -- Admission of claimants not contemplated by law unfair to Canada and to respect for Canadian law -- Court must exercise deference to IRB, entity with recognized expertise in immigration matters -- Court established pursuant to Constitution Act, 1867, s. 101 for "better administration of laws of Canada" -- Where appears, as here, Minister's capitulation derogating from better administration of Immigration Act, Court must reject consent to capitulation -- In Miron v. Trudel, File No. 22744, S.C.C., refusing to accept Ontario Attorney General's concession no Charter, s. 1 justification for legislation under scrutiny and appointing amicus curiae to defend Ontario legislation -- In Canada in matters of public law, minister ought not lightly to abandon defence or enforcement of public statutes -- Court rejecting Minister's groundless consent -- Matter to be thoroughly argued on adjourned judicial review proceedings -- If necessary Court will appoint amicus curiae, at wholly unnecessary but justifiable public expense, to uphold public law of Canada -- Application for judicial review adjourned, referred to Associate Chief Justice to fix new date for hearing -- If parties unable to agree upon date to be fixed, application for judicial review may be heard peremptorily, and even in absence of counsel, may be peremptorily dismissed -- If parties by counsel decline without good reasons to argue case on fixed hearing date, application for judicial review may be heard, disposed of peremptorily -- Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, RR. 324, 340 (as am. by SOR/79-57, s. 7).