SIMRANJIT SINGH Applicant v. DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION, 2023 FC 133

Date: 20230127 Docket: IMM-10117-22 Citation: 2023 FC 133 [ENGLISH TRANSLATION] Ottawa, Ontario, January 27, 2023 PRESENT: Associate Chief Justice Mireille Tabib BETWEEN:SIMRANJIT SINGHApplicantandDEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER [1] The applicant has submitted in writing a formal motion for an extension of time to serve and file his record. The respondent hasobjected. [2] The factors that the Court may consider and weigh to determine whether granting an extension would serve the interests of justice arewell known. The factors are as follows: 1.

Is there a reasonable explanation for the delay? 2. Did the applicant demonstrate a continuing intention to pursue his or her application? 3. Would prejudice to the respondent arise from the delay? 4. Does the application have merit? (See, as examples, Canada (Attorney General) v Hennelly, (1999) (FCA), 244 NR 399, and Lesly v Canada (MCI),2018 FC 272.) [3] The applicant’s record was to be served and filed no later than November 16, 2022. The formal motion before me was not filed untilDecember 8, 2022. [4] The applicant claims to have served his respondent’s record on November 28 and 29, 2022.

However, the evidence in the record doesnot support this claim. The applicant also claims to have contacted the respondent to ask it to consent to the extension of time onNovember 28, 2022. Although the evidence on the record also does not support this claim, the respondent, at paragraph 18 of its writtensubmissions in reply, appears to admit that it received an informal request for an extension for the first time on that date. [5] The evidence on the record also establishes that some confusion occurred in the applicant’s counsel’s office when cases wereassigned for November 2022.

Because of the fact that the firm was dealing with two cases with a similar name, a colleague mistakenlybelieved that this case had been assigned to another lawyer. The error was discovered [translation] "“after Mr. Istvanffy’s return”".However, the affidavits filed in support of the motion do not specify the date of Mr. Istvanffy’s return.

The statement in the notice ofmotion and in the written submissions that his return took place on November 21, 2022, is therefore not supported by the evidence. [6] Thus, the evidence establishes to the Court’s satisfaction that there was indeed confusion in the applicant’s counsel’s office as to whowas responsible for preparing the applicant’s case. The Court is satisfied that this was an error in good faith that explains a certain delay. [7] However, there is insufficient evidence to explain the full length of the delay.

The Court is not in a position to determine the date onwhich the error was actually discovered, and is therefore not in a position to conclude that the applicant did exercise diligence to remedythe defect as soon as the error was discovered. [8] Indeed, even if it were accepted that the error was discovered on November 21, 2022, and that the record was served on November28, 2022, the fact remains that the applicant unreasonably delayed notifying the respondent of the situation and requesting its consent toan extension.

The 10-day delay between service of the record and filing of the formal motion for an extension is also excessive andunjustified. The argument that counsel’s workload did not allow him to act earlier cannot be accepted. A lawyer or firm that accepts toomany cases to be able to adequately respond to an unforeseen event does not show reasonable foresight. [9] As to the continuing intention to pursue the application, the evidence on the record does not seem to support the testimony of Ms.Vasquez, secretary-receptionist, that the applicant often called the firm to follow up on his file.

The Court presumes that counsel notifiedhis client of the procedural deadlines when agreeing to represent him, including the deadline of November 16, 2022. When the deadlinepassed and the applicant had not heard from his counsel, he should have checked in with the firm, which would have enabled the lawyersto realize their error.

But the error remained unknown until counsel undertook a general review of the cases. [10] Finally, regarding the merit of the application, the motion record merely states, in the written submissions, that the applicant claimsthere are [translation] "“serious deficiencies in the assessment of the evidence that was submitted to the authorities, as well as significant

errors in the assessment of the facts and serious errors of law in that the Panel arbitrarily rejected some very convincing evidence.” " This gratuitous statement is devoid of details and is not supported by any document that would have allowed the Court to be satisfied with its merits. [ 11 ] In short, the Court believes that counsel for the applicant committed an error in good faith that resulted in the time limits for serving and filing the applicant’s record being exceeded. However, having made this mistake, neither the applicant nor his counsel showed diligence or were eager to rectify the error.

Rather, they appear to have been quite complacent, as if the existence of a reasonable explanation for the initial error relieved them of their responsibility to act promptly thereafter. Yet it is the entire delay that the applicant must explain, including any delay in seeking an extension. This delay, which is both significant and unjustified in the circumstances, does not demonstrate a continuing intention to pursue the litigation. Since the applicant has also not satisfied the Court that the application merits being heard, the Court concludes that it is not in the interests of justice to grant the extension.

ORDER THIS COURT ORDERS as follows: 1 . The motion is dismissed. “Mireille Tabib” Associate Chief Justice Certified true translation Janna Balkwill FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: IMM-10117-22 STYLE OF CAUSE: SIMRANJIT SINGH v DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION PLACE OF HEARING: MOTION CONSIDERED WITHOUT APPEARANCE DATE OF HEARING: MOTION CONSIDERED WITHOUT APPEARANCE REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: TABIB A.C.J.

DATED: JANUARY 26, 2023 APPEARANCES : MIGUEL MENDEZ For the applicant CHANTAL CHATMAJIAN For the respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Étude légale STEWART-ISTVANFFY Montréal, Quebec For the applicant

Department of Justice Canada (Attorney General of Canada) Montréal, Quebec For the respondent