chikloo said:
I copied this text from CIC link
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/inside/appeals-review.asp
It clearly states a lawyer must.
links18 said:
That's misleading then. Pretty sure in Canada you have the right to represent yourself in court. But again, generally speaking its not a good idea. I believe there are provisions to allow law students to assist in such matters. If they made you have a lawyer to take some specific action you have a right to take, then fairness would dictate they would also have to pay for the lawyer, if you couldn't afford it.
links18 has this right. The imperative stated at the immigration and citizenship website (at http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/inside/appeals-review.asp) is a
practical imperative
not a legal requirement.
My typically long explanation:
For the technical rules actually governing initiating a proceeding in the Federal Court, see the Federal Court Rules beginning with Rule 61 at
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-106/page-6.html#h-25
There is
no requirement that proceedings seeking leave for review be brought by a lawyer. (On behalf of an individual; proceedings on behalf of organizations, like a corporation, generally must be brought by a lawyer.)
The easier to read and comprehend approach is to look at the FAQs for the Federal Court, where it states:
12. Do I need a lawyer to prepare and file documents in the Federal Court?
Although you may represent yourself at the Federal Court, we recommend that you retain a lawyer because the procedures are complex. If you are not a lawyer, you may only represent yourself.
see http://cas-cdc-www02.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/FAQ#top
Caution: This
recommendation is an understatement. While as
chikloo otherwise notes, it is one thing for an individual to go
pro se (representing oneself) in trial court proceedings (which is likewise, usually, not recommended, but is fairly common), the level of difficulty representing oneself in an application seeking leave for review is much, much higher; the complexity, especially the technicalities of appellate procedure, are daunting and, frankly, tend to trip up many lawyers let alone laypersons. (A lawyer acquaintance who was clerking for a Federal Court several years ago now, and whose father was a judge until he died, once told me that a very high percentage of proceedings brought in the Federal Court
by lawyers are dismissed based on
technicalities, because the lawyer screwed up technically, the substantive issues never addressed on the merits.)
Thus, an individual may apply to the Federal Court for leave to appeal even though at http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/inside/appeals-review.asp the immigration and citizenship website states:
"Under Canada’s immigration law, you can ask the Federal Court of Canada to review decisions related to immigration. A lawyer must apply for judicial review on your behalf."
Practically speaking this is a fair statement, thus not really misleading.
If taken as a mandatory directive, however, it is misleading. (Moreover, grammatically it asserts an obviously untrue imperative; grammatically it states that a lawyer
must apply for judicial review, as if it is mandatory to apply for judicial review. CIC is not particularly known for its communication savvy.)
Kind of reminds me of the guy who came out of the restaurant restroom holding his hands up and saying to staff "the sign says employees must wash hands, but no one was there to wash mine." OK, maybe that easily confused simpleton was the moronic literalist I'm compelled to see in the mirror every morning. But this actually illustrates the point that many times simple imperatives do not mean what they say literally, their meaning being, however, very clear in context. We get it. For the statement at the immigration and citizenship website, that context is that having a lawyer apply for review is the practical imperative, not a formal requirement.
Whether or not, in this situation, it would be prudent to pursue judicial review, a Writ of Mandamus, a request to reconsider, a request for a hearing, really is a question only a competent, reputable, reliable lawyer experienced in citizenship cases can reasonably answer. I will discuss this some in the other topic more specifically about the abandonment.
