FOREFRONT PLACEMENT LTD. Appellant v. THE MINISTER OF, 2017 FCA 196

Date: 20170921 Docket: A-58-17 Citation: 2017 FCA 196 CORAM: NADON J.A. STRATAS J.A. WEBB J.A. BETWEEN: FOREFRONT PLACEMENT LTD. Appellant and THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on September 21, 2017. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on September 21, 2017. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: STRATAS J.A. Date: 20170921 Docket: A-58-17 Citation: 2017 FCA 196 CORAM: NADON J.A. STRATAS J.A. WEBB J.A. BETWEEN: FOREFRONT PLACEMENT LTD.

Appellant and THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on September 21, 2017). STRATAS J.A. [ 1 ] Forefront Placement Ltd. appeals from the order dated February 14, 2017 of the Federal Court ( per Southcott J.). On an interlocutory basis, the Federal Court ordered, among other things, that Mr. Leahy, a disbarred lawyer, could not represent Forefront in the application before it. [ 2 ] Forefront appeals this interlocutory ruling to this Court. By interlocutory order of this Court dated May 9, 2017, Mr.

Leahy was granted leave to represent Forefront in this appeal hearing. Left for this Court at the hearing of the appeal was whether Mr. Leahy is permitted to act as counsel under

section 11 of the Federal Courts Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7. [ 3 ] The respondent, among other things, submits that this appeal is barred as an interlocutory matter arising under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act , S.C. 2001, c. 27: see para. 72(2) ( e ).

[ 4 ] The first step is to characterize Forefront’s application in the Federal Court and to assess whether, in the words of

section 72 of the Act, it is a “matter — a decision, determination or order made, a measure taken or a question raised — under the Act.” If so, then this is an interlocutory matter arising under the Act and so an appeal is barred. [ 5 ] I note that the reference to “the Act” in

section 72 includes a regulation: see subsection 2(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . [ 6 ] In its application in the Federal Court, Forefront seeks to resist or reduce the payment of a $1,000 fee under

section 315.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations , SOR/2002-227. It alleges that this provision in the Regulations conflicts with a provision in

an Act, namely subsection 19(2) of the Financial Administration Act , R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11 and, thus, is invalid. [ 7 ] In our view, this falls within the bar in

section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act . It is a matter or question raised under the Act. [ 8 ] Forefront urges that the Financial Administration Act is the matter before us. We disagree. Subsection 19(2) of the Financial Administration Act is only a ground invoked in a matter or question that, in substance, concerns the avoidance or reduction of the obligation to pay the fee under

section 315.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations . [ 9 ] Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal. Therefore, we will dismiss the appeal with costs. "David Stratas" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD Docket: A-58-17 APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUTHCOTT DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2017, DOCKET NO. T-1-17 STYLE OF CAUSE: FOREFRONT PLACEMENT LTD. v.

THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: September 21, 2017 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A. STRATAS J.A. WEBB J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: STRATAS J.A. APPEARANCES : Timothy E. Leahy For The Appellant John Loncar For The Respondent SOLICITORS OF RECORD : Forefront Placement Ltd. Toronto, Ontario For The Appellant

Nathalie G. Drouin Deputy Attorney General of Canada For The Respondent