Moreno v. Canada ( Minister of Citizenship and Immigration )
IMM-3234-97
Denault J.
6/10/98
9 pp.
Judicial review of respondent's refusal to cause inquiry to be held pursuant to Immigration Act, s. 27(6)-Applicant, Peruvian citizen, applied for permanent resident status under Refugee Backlog Program-Immigration officer writing s. 27(2) report alleging reasonable grounds to believe applicant committed war crime or crime against humanity-Direction for Inquiry issued to determine if applicant such person-Before inquiry held, applicant filing second application for permanent residence on humanitarian, compassionate grounds-That application denied and new s. 27(2) report written on ground applicant had not presented valid immigrant visa or travel document at port of entry-Report resulting in removal order-Direction for Inquiry cancelled-Applicant voluntarily leaving Canada-Application dismissed-Application of two-stage process affirmed in R. v. Adams, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 707 to resolve whether matter moot-(1) As to whether live controversy, matter rendered moot when three factors coalesced, ultimately culminating in execution of removal order-(2) Whether Court should exercise its discretion to hear matter despite finding of mootness depending on: (i) existence of adversarial context; (ii) concern for judicial economy; (iii) Court's need to demonstrate awareness of proper law-making function: Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342-On balance, judicial discretion should not be exercised in applicant's favour-Isolated occurrence based on unique facts-As not case reasonably likely to recur, not in public interest to address issue raised-Except for existence of adversarial process, Borowski criteria favouring dismissal of application, particularly in light of concern for judicial economy-Even if matter not moot, application dismissed because applicant no longer subject to Direction for Inquiry as cancelled-Deputy Minister clearly having discretion to modify, withdraw Direction for Inquiry-Deputy Minister's decision to cancel Direction for Inquiry decision with respect to applicant, not decision against him, and as such applicant not entitled to greater procedural protections than those already afforded him: Kindler v. MacDonald, [1987] 3 F.C. 34 (C.A.)-Courts should not take into account other possible consequences of withdrawal of Direction-Immigration Act, R.S.C., c. I-2, s. 27(2),(6) (as am. by S.C. 1992, c. 49, s. 16).