|
Immigration - Costs. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Rodas Tejeda
In Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) v. Rodas Tejeda (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal considers the awarding of costs in immigration matters:E. Should Costs be Awarded Against the Minister?
[93] I next consider Mr. Rodas Tejeda’s request for costs. While the Federal Courts Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR/93-22, generally reflect the principle that costs are not awarded in immigration matters, Rule 22 permits the Court to award costs in special circumstances, including where the conduct of a party so warrants.
[94] In this case, the Minister materially shifted his position on appeal in a manner that was both unexpected and inconsistent with the position advanced before the Federal Court, thereby contributing to unnecessary litigation and undermining the efficient resolution of the issues. This was unfair to Mr. Rodas Tejeda, particularly considering that he asserts that he has been unfairly prejudiced by delay.
[95] The jurisprudence confirms that costs may be awarded under Rule 22 in circumstances where a party’s conduct materially departs from the standards expected of a public decision-maker and results in unnecessary or avoidable litigation. In Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Shen, 2025 FC 1175, Salem v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 FC 756 and Carrero v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2021 FC 891, costs were awarded where the conduct of the Minister or the Minister’s agents contributed to unnecessary proceedings, prolonged litigation, or otherwise undermined the efficient and fair resolution of the issues before the Court.
[96] In my view, the same considerations arise here. The Minister’s shifting position on appeal required Mr. Rodas Tejeda to respond to a materially different framing of the jurisdictional issue than that advanced before the Federal Court, while also contributing to avoidable litigation and an inefficient use of judicial resources. In these circumstances, an award of costs is warranted given the nature of the Minister’s conduct. The cost award will also serve to reinforce the expectation that proceedings under the IRPA are to be conducted by the Minister in a manner consistent with fairness, efficiency, and candour.
[97] I would accordingly grant Mr. Rodas Tejeda his costs in both appeals as the Minister’s change in position affected both of them. . Rodriguez Anzola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
In Rodriguez Anzola v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, this brought against the dismissal of "the appellant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Division (the ID) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB)", this regarding an ID finding that the appellant was "inadmissible to Canada on grounds of serious criminality pursuant to paragraph 36(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c. 27 (the Act) for having committed an offence in her country of origin (trafficking or carrying illegal drugs) which, if committed in Canada, would constitute an offence under an Act of Parliament – here the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c. 19 – punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years".
Here the court considers the presumption that immigration litigation matters (including appeals) are without costs:[136] As provided for under section 22 of the Federal Citizenship, Immigration and Refugee Protection Rules, SOR 93/22, no costs are awarded in proceedings brought under the Act, including appeals before this Court, unless there are special reasons to do so. Neither party claims that there are special reasons calling for an award of costs in this appeal.
[137] I would therefore allow the appeal, without costs.
|
