T-1614-95
IN THE MATTER OF THE CITIZENSHIP ACT,
R.S.C., 1985, c. C-29
AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal from the
decision of a Citizenship Judge
AND IN THE MATTER OF
CHUNG SHUN PAUL HO
Appellant
REASONS FOR ORDER
LUTFY, J.:
The appellant seeks reconsideration of my Judgment of January 9, 1997 dismissing his appeal.
There is nothing in the Court material to indicate that the documents referred to in exhibit "C" to the affidavit in support of this motion for reconsideration were filed during the hearing of the appeal. The appellant's counsel had informed me of the decision of the second Citizenship Judge but it is only on this motion that his short written reasons were disclosed. I doubt that the written decision would have been admissible evidence on the appeal. In any event, it discloses no substantive information that was not mentioned orally by the appellant's counsel during his representations.
Similarly, no document has been shown to me from the complete certified record of the Citizenship Judge which discloses information that would have altered my Reasons for Judgment.
Accordingly, the motion for reconsideration is dismissed.
Allan Lutfy Judge
Ottawa, Ontario
March 3, 1997
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF SOLICITORS AND SOLICITORS ON THE RECORD
COURT FILE NO.:
T-1614-95
STYLE OF CAUSE:
Citizenship Act v. Chung Shun Paul Ho
PLACE OF HEARING:
Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:
February 18, 1997
REASONS FOR ORDER
RENDERED BY:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Lutfy
DATED:
March 3, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Sheldon M. Robins
appearing on behalf of the Appellant
Mr. Peter K. Large
Amicus Curiae
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Sheldon M. Robins
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
appearing on behalf of the Appellant
Mr. Peter K. Large
Barrister and Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
Amicus Curiae