Brar v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-2705-96
Heald D.J.
10/12/97
4 pp.
Motion to re-open judicial review application for purpose of certifying question pursuant to Immigration Act, s. 83(1)-Judicial review application dismissed on basis letter sought to be reviewed by applicant "courtesy response", not decision forming basis for judicial response-Applicants submitting as basis upon which application dismissed not pursued in oral argument not having meaningful opportunity to ask question be certified on that issue-Motion dismissed-Question only certified pursuant to s. 83(1), "at the time of rendering judgment"-Conflicting decisions concerning whether Court having jurisdiction to certify question after Court rendering oral judgment, but even least restrictive of these decisions interpreting s. 83 as precluding certification after judgment pronounced in written form: Popov v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), 75 F.T.R. 93 (F.C.T.D.); Illanko v. Canada (Solicitor General) (1995), 27 Imm. L.R. (2d) 106 (F.C.T.D.)-Applicant aware "courtesy response" issue before Court-Respondent referring to issue in written submissions-Simpson J. in Illanko holding unable to agree with rationale expressed in Popov-If case raising broad question transcending interests of immediate parties, such question will be identified by counsel when reading Board's decision, preparing application for leave and for judicial review or during oral argument-Important to recall decision being "rendered", as described in s. 83, decision on judicial review application-Meaning decision made on record before Board-Facts of case not changing after Board's decision-Inconceivable serious question of general importance transcending interests of parties could remain invisible until after decision made on judicial review application-Heald D.J. not having jurisdiction to re-open matter, functus officio: compare Terrasse Jewellers Inc. v. Canada (1997), 129 F.T.R. 161 (F.C.T.D.).