|
Federal Court - Motions. Zahrebelnyi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
In Zahrebelnyi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a motion for a stay (RJR), this in relation to an order that dismissed a JR against a "determination of inadmissibility issued against them under sections 34 [SS: 'Inadmissibility - Security'] and 42 [SS: 'Inadmissible family member'] of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act" and the earlier 'permanent residence' decision.
Here the court considered the rarity of oral hearings for Federal Court motions:[35] Regarding the appellants’ request for an oral hearing, under Rule 369.2(1), unless the Court orders otherwise, motions shall be decided based on written submissions from the parties. The Court’s practice has been to grant such requests only in exceptional circumstances: Lafond v. Canada (Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), 2023 FCA 227 at para. 7. Here, the appellants contend that an oral hearing is necessary to better assist the Court in understanding the irreparable harm they would face if the motion is not granted. However, the evidence they provided regarding irreparable harm was not overly complex and was readily comprehensible to the Court.
[36] While I understand the difficulty this uncertainty poses for the family, I cannot exercise my discretion to grant the stay they are seeking under the circumstances. Therefore, the appellants’ request for an oral hearing will be denied, and their motion for a stay of the effects of their inadmissibility determination and the PR refusal decision will be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. . Macciacchera (Smoothstreams.tv) v. Bell Media Inc.
In Macciacchera (Smoothstreams.tv) v. Bell Media Inc. (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal comments of motion practice:[2] Though the notice of motion indicates that it is a motion in writing, Messrs. Macciacchera have requested in a separate letter that a hearing be scheduled to hear oral submissions. Per Rule 369.2, motions before this Court are generally decided on the basis of written submissions. A request that a motion be heard orally should include reasons. Messrs. Macciacchera’s request for an oral hearing does not include reasons. Further, I see no need for an oral hearing. Accordingly, I will decide this motion on the basis of the written submissions. . Heiltsuk Horizon Maritime Services Ltd. v. Atlantic Towing Limited
In Heiltsuk Horizon Maritime Services Ltd. v. Atlantic Towing Limited (Fed CA, 2023) the Federal Court of Appeal criticized the procedural practice of a party responding to a motion with a motion to quash, rather than responding on the merits (SS: the evidence and argument relied upon in either case would have to be similar - see para 7):[4] As a general rule, a responding party should address the substance of the issues raised by the motion (Sandpiper Distributing Inc. v. Ringas, 2020 FC 366, 2020 CarswellNat 1638 (WL Can) at para. 48). Dressing up a response to a motion in the guise of a motion to quash serves no one’s interest—it simply imposes unnecessary costs and delay on all parties, and unduly burdens the Court’s administrative and judicial resources. It is a type of practice that is inconsistent with the modern approach to litigation and the priority courts give to addressing the substance of the issue. Both the Supreme Court and this Court have spoken many times of the need of all participants in the judicial system to enhance accessibility and efficiency (Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87 at para. 28; Sport Maska Inc. v. Bauer Hockey Ltd., 2019 FCA 204, 165 C.P.R. (4th) 381 at para. 32; Sweet Productions Inc. v. Licensing LP International S.À.R.L., 2022 FCA 111, 2022 CarswellNat 2036 (WL Can) at para. 43).
[5] That said, motions to quash can and do play a useful role in the litigation process where they genuinely raise a threshold issue—a knockout punch—that disposes of the motion on the preliminary issue alone (Viiv Healthcare Company v. Gilead Sciences Canada, Inc., 2021 FCA 122, 460 D.L.R. (4th) 272 at para. 20).
|
