Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Constitutional law – Judicial independence – Procedural law – Directions – Certification of questions – Whether a single judge of an appellate court has jurisdiction to direct the court’s registry to refuse to issue, in limine, a Notice of Appeal – Whether s. 74(d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, breaches the right to a fair and independent judiciary – Whether an order on a motion for contempt of court constitutes an interlocutory order.

The applicant, Mr. Alabi, was refused his permanent resident, pre-removal risk assessment and investor class applications. He then submitted a temporary resident permit (“TRP”) application, which was refused. On judicial review, the Federal Court ordered the redetermination of the TRP application by a different officer. The second application was refused. Judicial review was again sought, and a hearing was scheduled.

In the meantime, Mr. Alabi brought a motion seeking to hold the respondent Minister personally in contempt of court, on the grounds that the speed of redetermination of his TRP application suggested it had not been redetermined properly. The Federal Court dismissed the motion. Barnes J. noted that Mr. Alabi was seeking relief related to a decision pending judicial review. He concluded that the relief sought was unavailable in the context of a motion, and that Mr. Alabi was not entitled to discretionary relief beyond what could potentially be ordered in his pending application. Barnes J. added that nothing in the record supported a finding of contempt against the Minister.

Mr. Alabi then attempted to file a notice of appeal before the Federal Court of Appeal. However, Boivin J.A. directed the Registry of the Court of Appeal to not accept the notice for filing because it was related to an interlocutory decision and no question of general importance had been certified in the matter pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.