Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration ) v. Nemsila
A-782-96
Stone J.A.
27/5/97
16 pp.
Mootness-Death of appellant-Appellant, convicted of war crimes in Czechoslovakia, escaped custody and entered Canada in 1950 without disclosing that information-When matter came to light and appellant faced deportation, Adjudicator decided appellant could not be deported as had acquired domicile-Motions Judge overturned decision on basis could not have acquired domicile as had not been lawfully admitted to Canada and had not been "landed", therefore could not benefit from protection of Immigration Act, s. 19(1)(e)(viii) ([1997] 1 F.C. 260 and [1996] 3 F.C. D-4)-Three questions certified-Appellant died after appeal fully argued on merits but before judgment could be rendered-Appeal dismissed as moot-Issue whether Court should, despite mootness, exercise discretion to render judgment in accordance with Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342-Three rationalia for enforcement of mootness doctrine-(1) Need for adversarial context not determinative herein as issues in appeal fully argued by parties and intervenors-(2) Consideration of second rationale (concern for judicial economy) leads to exercise of discretion against rendering judgment-Not case where decision would have practical effects on rights of parties-Not case of recurring nature but brief direction-Issue of public importance involved in appeal not, of itself, sufficient to overcome mootness as no special circumstances making it worthwhile to apply scarce judicial resources to resolve it-(3) While issues of statutory interpretation involved herein within Court's traditional lawmaking role, Court not ultimate arbiter of dispute involved in appeal, role belonging to Supreme Court of Canada-Regardless of whether appeal allowed or dismissed, counsel could not be instructed on seeking or opposing possible application for leave to appeal to Supreme Court or in arguing merits of appeal there-Immigration Act, The, R.S.C. 1952, c. 42, s. 19(1)(e)(viii).