TUSIF UR REHMAN CHHINA Applicant v. THE MINISTER OF, 2017 FC 771

Date: 20170816 Docket: IMM-2068-17 Citation: 2017 FC 771 Calgary, Alberta, August 16, 2017 PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice McDonald Docket: IMM-2068-17BETWEEN:TUSIF UR REHMAN CHHINAApplicantandTHE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATIONRespondent JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] This is an application for judicial review of a May 1, 2017 Detention Review Decision (the Decision) of the Immigration andRefugee Board of Canada, Immigration Division.

The Decision ordered the ongoing detention of the applicant on the basis that hisidentity had not been established and on the basis that he was a flight risk and unlikely to appear for his removal. The issue was securingtravel documents to have the applicant returned to Pakistan. At the time of the May 1, 2017 detention review hearing the applicant hadbeen in detention since November 2015. [2] Following the filing of this judicial review, another Detention Review Hearing was held on July 21, 2017.

At this hearing,the Minister advised that the government of Pakistan had approved the return of the applicant to Pakistan and that a travel documentwould be issued. At that time it was anticipated that the applicant would be returned to Pakistan at the end of August or the beginning ofSeptember, 2017. [3] On the hearing of this judicial review application I was advised that travel documents for the applicant have been secured soremoval will take place in accordance with the August - September timeframe as noted in the July 21, 2017 Detention Review Hearing.

Accordingly, the applicant’s argument that his detention is unlawful on the grounds that it is “indeterminate” is no longer applicable. [4] In light of these developments at the hearing of the judicial review application, both legal counsel for the Applicant and legalcounsel for the Respondent, submit that the judicial review application has been rendered moot. [5] In applying the test articulated in Borowski v Canada (Attorney General), (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 342 atparas 15-17, and 29-40 [Borowski], there is no longer a live controversy between the parties that this Court's decision would have anypractical effect on solving.

Further, upon considering the factors in the second branch of the Borowski test, I decline to excise mydiscretion to decide the matter. [6] The Minister sought costs, but in the circumstances I decline to award any costs. JUDGMENT THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the application is dismissed as moot. No costs are awarded. "Ann Marie McDonald" Judge FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: IMM-2068-17 STYLE OF CAUSE: TUSIF UR REHMAN CHHINA v THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP ANDIMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING: Calgary, Alberta DATE OF HEARING: August 16, 2017 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT: MCDONALD J. DATED: August 16, 2017 APPEARANCES : Nico G.J. Breed For The Applicant Camille N. Audain For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Note Bene Law Group Inc. Barristers and Solicitors Calgary, Alberta For The Applicant Nathalie G. Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada Toronto, Ontario For The Respondent