Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content


Date: 19990203


Docket: IMM-4178-98

BETWEEN:

     YU HUA SHAO,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

     AND IMMIGRATION,

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

MR. JOHN A. HARGRAVE,

PROTHONOTARY

[1]      The Applicant requests an expedited hearing of a permanent residency application, the delay of which, by immigration officials in Hong Kong and the anticipated delay in hearing the matter in the Federal Court, has resulted in difficulties and anxieties both on behalf of the Applicant and on behalf of the Applicant's niece and family who now live in Canada.

[2]      The granting of an expedited hearing is dealt with by the Federal Court of Appeal in Apotex v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd. (1998), 28 N.R. 349. Where "... there is a serious issue focusing on irreparable harm" (page 357) and the other side will not be prejudiced, the Court will usually make a judge available, provided a time table convenient to counsel and to the Court can be agreed upon.

[3]      While I am not convinced that the irreparable harm test is the only test by which an expedited hearing may be ordered, the Applicant in the present instance shows, at best, a serious inconvenience.

[4]      There is a further reason why this application, in the absence of irreparable harm, or some other exceptional circumstance, ought not to be expedited. There is still a back log of immigration matters to be heard by the Court. To expedite an individual hearing will mean either a cancellation of an already scheduled hearing, or the deferment of a matter which is also waiting for a hearing date. This is a point made by the Court of Appeal in Unilever Plc. v. Chefaro Proprietaries Ltd. [1995], 1 W.L.R. 243 at 245. Here I would refer counsel to the table of criteria for an expedited hearing set out in the Unilever case at pages 246 and 247 and the note to the effect that where criteria are not satisfied, the Court will not ordinarily grant an expedited hearing.

ORDER

[5]      The motion for an expedited hearing is dismissed.

                             (Sgd.) "John A. Hargrave"

                                 Prothonotary

Vancouver, British Columbia

February 3, 1999


     FEDERAL COURT TRIAL DIVISION

     NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

COURT NO.:              IMM-4178-98

STYLE OF CAUSE:          YU HUA SHAO

                     v.

                     MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL.

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

OF MR. JOHN A. HARGRAVE, PROTHONOTARY

dated February 3, 1999

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY:

     Mr. Lu Chan          for Applicant

     Ms. Brenda Carbonell      for Respondent

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

     Lu Chan

     Burnaby, BC          for Applicant

     Morris Rosenberg          for Respondent

     Deputy Attorney General

     of Canada


 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.