Date: 20010412
Dockets: IMM-2296-96
IMM-2294-96
IMM-2297-96
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 328
BETWEEN:
ATLANTIC PRUDENCE FUND CORPORATION
ATLANTIC GROWTH FUND CORPORATION LIMITED
AB CAPITAL CORPORATION
KLC CAPITAL CORPORATION LIMITED
MOUNT ROYAL CAPITAL CORPORATION
PEI GROWTH FUND CORPORATION
ATLANTIC PRUDENCE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
GRT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
ABT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
KLC MANAGEMENT LTD., MTR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
and PEI GROWTH MANAGEMENT CORPORATION LTD.
Applicants
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
HUGESSEN J.
[1] This is a motion brought by the applicants pursuant to rule 369 seeking to have me, as Case Management Judge, direct the Administrator of the Court to send a letter to the Commissioner appointed under the Access to Information Act asking him to expedite a complaint filed by the applicants' solicitors.
[2] The applicants have brought applications for judicial review with regard to certain ministerial decisions purportedly made under the authority of the Immigration Act. Their solicitors made a request for documents pursuant to the Access Act in response to which the Minister invoked certain exemptions created by that Act to refuse or delete portions of some of the documents requested. The applicants have filed a complaint with the Commissioner regarding such refusals and deletions but have been advised by the Commissioner that due to pressure of work, the matter will not be dealt with for some months. The applicants say that they need the documents and deleted portions for the purpose of pursuing these applications and thus they seek to invoke the Court's aid in expediting matters in the Commissioner's office.
[3] Leaving aside any questions as to my jurisdiction to issue an order of the type requested, I do not think that it is appropriate that I should do so. It is clear that a letter from the Administrator would have no executory force and would not oblige the Commissioner to speed up the process or indeed to respond in any way at all. The applicants want the letter sent for its "persuasive effect" and in order to draw the Commissioner's attention to the fact that the delay in dealing with the complaint will necessarily result in a delay in the hearing of these applications. Both reasons seem to me to be bad.
[4] In my view, it would be wrong for the Court to attempt to use its "persuasive" powers (whatever they may be) towards an official whose decisions the Court may ultimately be called upon to judge. To do so would be to interfere with that very independence which is a necessary part of the Commissioner's function and credibility. It would be a misuse of the Court's authority.
[5] It is also wrong, in my view, to suggest, as the applicants do, that the proposed letter "simply provides information" to the Commissioner so as to allow the latter to decide whether he can or should speed up the process. That necessarily involves the assumptions that the refused or deleted portions of documents were improperly withheld in the first place, and, if they were, that they would be relevant and admissible in the judicial review proceedings. There is nothing before me which persuades me that either of those conditions are presently fulfilled. It follows that the proposed letter would not be conveying factual information to the Commissioner but would simply be an expression of the hopes of one of the parties. That would not be a proper exercise on the part of the Court.
[6] The motion will be dismissed with costs.
ORDER
The motion is dismissed with costs.
Judge