Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[Raymond Guénette]

To explain it to you very briefly, it's something like a mini-judge. They can hear certain matters, but there are other matters they cannot hear. They do sit all day and they do sit as judges, but they're limited. I believe they can't hear a case above $50,000, and there are certain other areas that they cannot hear, but they sit as judges all day long. They do a lot of case management. Many files go through their offices.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Would they ever hear immigration and refugee cases?

[Wayne Garnons-Williams]

They would hear the motions for extension of time, motions for various aspects, but I don't believe they would hear the actual judicial review.

[Raymond Guénette]

The act does say “a judge of the Federal Court”, and they are not judges of the court.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I take your point about there not being a backlog, and I hear some pride in getting to that point. Mr. Telegdi suggested there had been a backlog of around 900 cases. Can you tell me a bit about statistics from other years so that we have a point of comparison for the number of immigration and refugee cases that the board might hear, and how that compares to what has been on the schedule more recently?

[Raymond Guénette]

I'll direct this to Wayne Garnons-Williams to answer. He's the expert on statistics.

[Wayne Garnons-Williams]

Thank you.

Yes, for refugee cases only, let's start at year 2000, for new proceedings. In the year 2000 there were 4,490. In 2001 there were 4,067. In 2002 there were 4,986 refugee cases started. In 2003 there were 8,857 new refugee cases started. In 2004 there were 9,104 cases, and I believe you have the statistics for 2005. Our current estimate for 2006, for the year end, will be 4,917. That's an estimate.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I think you may have touched on this already, but how did the court decide to deal with the issue of the backlog that existed, and what were the steps that were taken to reduce that and get it under control?

[Raymond Guénette]

The steps taken by the chief justice were that he had at one point two judges assigned to deal with the majority and he then appointed four of them. We also increased staff to deal with these in order for him to get rid of all this backlog. So there was a blitz, judges and staff working together to get rid of the backlog.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

So were new permanent staff and permanent judges added, or was that all temporary overtime?

[Raymond Guénette]

To a great measure, yes.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

So it was people just doing extra work to clear up the backlog?

[Raymond Guénette]

That's correct, and judges working on Saturday and evenings. They used to get big cases of files in their offices on a daily basis.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Is there any suggestion that there needs to be an increase to permanent staff or the number of judges to deal with the caseload before the Federal Court?

[Raymond Guénette]

Not at this time.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I think those are all the questions I have, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Siksay.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

I have some questions relating to the grounds for judicial review that you had referred to in your opening remarks, the grounds for judicial review in the present Federal Courts Act, under subsection 18.1(4).

As I read the first ground, the court can look at whether or not the lower-level decision was one where they acted without jurisdiction, or beyond its jurisdiction, or refused to exercise its jurisdiction.

Would you agree with me that there would be a question of law, and mixed law and fact, in that determination?

[Wayne Garnons-Williams]

I believe so.

The six heads of power as stated in subsection 18.1(4) are, of course: without jurisdiction or beyond its jurisdiction; observe the principles of natural justice; procedural fairness or other procedures that it is required to observe; erred in law in making decision—

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

No, I'm just talking about ground number one. It's a question of both mixed law and fact. Ground number one: the Federal Court deals with the mixed question of law and fact in its determination.

Would you agree with me there?

[Wayne Garnons-Williams]

I'd have to say potentially yes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Also, as you were referring to paragraph four, they can also deal with the decision based on an erroneous finding of fact based on the material before a lower court.

[Wayne Garnons-Williams]

That's correct.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

That's correct.

They can then, if they decide that based on the record or the evidence there was an erroneous finding of fact, so find and refer it back to the lower level tribunal for a rehearing?

[Wayne Garnons-Williams]

That's correct.