Hearings set in the Federal Court this week involve contempt, class actions, security for costs
This week, hearings scheduled before the Federal Court concerned removal orders, pre-removal risk assessments (PRRA), maximum weekly work hour provisions, and allegations of sexual misconduct in the armed forces and adverse environmental effects of a coal project.
Federal Court
On Monday, the court heard the cases of Gurprit Singh Bedi v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-2571-21 and Gurprit Singh Bedi v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-2794-21.
The applicant, a citizen of India, moved to stay his removal until the determination of two related judicial review applications challenging a negative PRRA decision. Last November, in Singh Bedi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1469, the Federal Court granted the motion.
On Tuesday, the court heard Jianrui Ge et al v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-2352-23. The applicants moved to stay their removal to China pending the determination of a request for leave to file a judicial review application questioning the refusal of their PRRA application.
Last March, in Ge v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 CanLII 24804 (FC), the Federal Court dismissed the motion. The applicants showed a serious issue for trial but failed to satisfy the two other tests to justify granting a stay, the court found.
On Tuesday, the court heard Alian Aliaj v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, IMM-4473-22. The applicant, a citizen of Albania who came to Canada in May 2018 and requested refugee protection, moved to stay his removal until the determination of a negative PRRA decision.
In August 2022, in Aliaj v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2022 CanLII 72089 (FC), the Federal Court granted the motion. The applicant demonstrated serious issues and irreparable harm if he would be removed before the court’s determination, the court said.
On Tuesday, the court heard Benga Mining Limited et al v. Minister of Environment and Climate Change et al, T-1270-21. The applicant wanted to set aside the federal environment and climate change minister’s decision holding that the Grassy Mountain Coal Project was likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.
The applicant moved for an order compelling Canada’s attorney general to produce materials that were before a joint review panel. Last May, in Benga Mining Limited v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2023 FC 688, the Federal Court dismissed the motion. The applicant failed to establish that it sought relevant documents and that the attorney general should be compelled to certify these documents, the court held.
On Wednesday, the court heard Sherry Heyder v. Attorney General of Canada, T-2111-16. In November 2019, the Federal Court certified two class proceedings covering plaintiffs alleging sexual misconduct while serving in the Canadian armed forces and in the national defence department. The court approved a final settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the federal attorney general.
In January 2023, in Heyder v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 FC 28, the court issued an order stating that the administrator should decide whether to accept certain late claims for which the court’s leave was requested.
On Thursday, the court will hear Grain Workers’ Union Local 333 v. Viterra Canada Inc., T-1938-19. The respondent was found in contempt of an arbitration award ordering it to cease and desist from breaching the maximum weekly work hour provisions in the Canada Labour Code, 1985. A penalty order would reduce a $400,000 fine to $275,000 if the respondent could show that it purged its contempt and continued to comply with the arbitration award.
Last August, in Grain Workers’ Union Local 333 v. Viterra Inc., 2023 FC 1143, the Federal Court ordered the respondent to pay the $400,000 fine imposed. The respondent failed to show that its contempt was purged, the court decided.
On Friday, the court will hear Andrea Camp et al v. The Purported Chief and Council of Buffalo Point First Nation, T-1594-23. This judicial review application involved Aboriginal law. The respondents moved for security for costs under subrules 416(1)(b) and 416(1)(g) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106.
On Jan. 4, in Camp v. Buffalo Point First Nation, 2024 CanLII 1704 (FC), the Federal Court granted the motion and ordered the applicant to deliver security for costs according to a specified schedule. This way, she would have the opportunity to raise funds through time, the court said.
