CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Immigration Practice |
Russell v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)
IMM-800-99
Reed J.
10/12/99
9 pp.
Motion for costs--Applicant detained by respondent under warrant for arrest--Failed to appear on January 20, 1999 for interview to arrange removal from Canada--On February 2, 1999, adjudicator concluded applicant would not report for removal if released, continued detention of applicant--At time, applicant under probation order from Ontario Provincial Court requiring reporting to probation officer on periodic basis--Again determined on February 9, 1999 applicant should be detained for removal--Applicant seeking leave to commence judicial review of detention decisions of February 2 and 9, 1999--Deportation scheduled for February 25, 1999--Applicant sought, obtained order of Court staying deportation--Released from detention--Parties agreeing judicial review application moot--Issue remaining applicant's claim for costs--Argument adjudicator, counsel for respondent, officials in enforcement branch simply made errors, were not acting in high-handed fashion not credible--Actions constituting gross negligence--Trial Division decisions in Cuskic v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1997), 130 F.T.R. 232 and Clarke v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 147 F.T.R. 259 (making it illegal to issue notice to report to individual subject to probation order containing direction to report periodically to probation officer) cannot be ignored until confirmed by Federal Court of Appeal--Enforcement branch, adjudicator ignored law--Respondent's counsel before adjudicator blatantly misinterpreted law--Circumstances constituting special reasons--Costs incurred all arising as consequence of February 2, 1999 decision, within parameters of present proceeding--Order for costs in accordance with reasons.