[2011] 3 F.C.R. D-6
Citizenship and Immigration
Immigration Practice
Motion under Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98‑106, r. 397(1)(b) for reconsideration of judgment on basis that matter of costs that should have been dealt with overlooked—Appellant successfully appealed Federal Court judgment dismissing application for judicial review of Minister’s decision under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27—Therefore, motion for costs subject to Federal Courts Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93‑22, r. 22, which precludes awarding of costs in absence of “special reasons”—No statutory definition of “special reasons” as used in Rules, r. 22, no definition developed in case law—Cases involving application of r. 22 providing some examples of circumstances that have been held to comprise “special reasons”, such as nature of case, applicant’s behaviour, Minister or immigration official’s behaviour, counsel’s behaviour—In determining whether “special reasons” existing for awarding costs, not relevant appellant unable to obtain legal aid funding—“[S]pecial reasons” cannot be based on importance of issue raised in appeal since certified question of general importance required in all appeals in immigration matters—Given particular circumstances, Minister not erring by refusing to join appellant’s judicial review application with another application—Taking into account all relevant circumstances, no “special reasons” existing in present case justifying award of costs—Motion dismissed.
Ndungu v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (A‑501‑09, 2011 FCA 208, Sharlow J.A., judgment dated June 21, 2011, 9 pp.)