|
Federal Court - Style of Cause. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Rodas Tejeda
In Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Rodas Tejeda (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal considers the accurate styles of cause in these cases:F. Should the Style of Cause be Amended?
[99] The Minister has requested that the style of cause be amended to substitute the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in the appeal from the Referral JR Decision in Court file A-72-25 and for the Minister of Public Safety and Immigration in the appeal from the ID JR Decision in Court file A-92-25.
[100] Under Rule 303 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106, an applicant for judicial review must name as respondents all persons directly affected by the order sought, or any party required by statute to be named. This party is often the party who appeared opposite the applicant in the administrative proceedings.
[101] In light of Rule 303 of the Federal Courts Rules, the style of cause should be amended to reflect that the appropriate party in Court files A-72-25 and A-92-25 is the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and not the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration nor the Minister of Public Safety and Immigration, as it is the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness who acts in admissibility matters and who was party to the proceedings before the ID. . Musani v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Musani v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a JR, this brought against "a decision of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, which dismissed her appeal from a decision of the Tribunal’s General Division", this respecting the denial of the applicant's "request to antedate her claim for EI benefits; that is, to treat the claim as having been made earlier than it was".
Here the court notes a 'style of cause' issue:[16] The first is a procedural issue relating to the style of cause. In her notice of application, Ms. Musani named the Canada Employment Insurance Commission as respondent. This was an error. Rule 303 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, requires in circumstances like those here in which there is no one directly affected by the order sought or required to be named by law, the Attorney General of Canada is to be named as respondent; see, for example, Mercer v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FCA 37 at para. 9. The style of cause in this Court’s judgment and these reasons now reflects this requirement, as it should in any future documents in this proceeding.
|
