http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/119858/index.do?r=AAAAAQAMWlVORVJBIElTSEFRAQ
Federal Court of Appeal Decision Canada
Case name Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Ishaq
Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date 2015-09-15
Neutral citation 2015 FCA 194
File numbers A-124-15
Date: 20150915
Docket: A-124-15
Citation: 2015 FCA 194
CORAM:
TRUDEL J.A.
WEBB J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
and
ZUNERA ISHAQ
Respondent
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Intervener
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 15, 2015.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 15, 2015.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
GLEASON J.A.
Date: 20150915
Docket: A-124-15
Citation: 2015 FCA 194
CORAM:
TRUDEL J.A.
WEBB J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Appellant
and
ZUNERA ISHAQ
Respondent
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO
Intervener
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 15, 2015.
[1] In the judgment under appeal, the Federal Court declared that the change in policy applicable to women who wear the niqab, that requires them to unveil to take the oath of citizenship, was unlawful. This policy change first came into effect on December 12, 2011 and was initially enshrined in Citizenship and Immigration Canada’s [CIC’s] Operational Bulletin 359. The policy change was shortly thereafter incorporated into section 6.5 of CIC’s policy manual, CP 15:Guide to Citizenship Ceremonies.
[2] One of the reasons given by the Federal Court for its judgment was the determination that this policy change was mandatory. The Federal Court also found that the policy change conflicted with the requirements of the Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29 and with the regulations made under that Act.
[3] The appellant has conceded that if we do not interfere with the Federal Court’s finding as to the mandatory nature of the policy change, this appeal must be dismissed in part because paragraph 27(1)(h) of the Citizenship Act delegates authority to make regulations regarding the taking of the oath of citizenship to the Governor in Council and this policy change was not adopted by the Governor in Council.
[4] While we do not necessarily agree with all the reasons given by the Federal Court, we see no basis to interfere with the Federal Court’s finding as to the mandatory nature of the impugned change in policy as this finding is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. It follows that this appeal must be dismissed.
[5] We decline to address the issues concerning the legality of the impugned policy change under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a determination on this point is unnecessary for the disposition of this case and the record before us is fairly scant as concerns the Charter challenge. Moreover, we believe that it is in the interests of justice that we not delay in issuing our decision through the examination of an unnecessary issue so as to hopefully leave open the possibility for the respondent to obtain citizenship in time to vote in the upcoming federal election.
[6] As a result, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
“Mary J.L. Gleason”
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
A-124-15
STYLE OF CAUSE:
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION v. ZUNERA ISHAQ
PLACE OF HEARING:
Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING:
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:
TRUDEL J.A.
WEBB J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:
GLEASON J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Peter Southey
Negar Ashemi
Julie Waldman
FOR THE APPELLANT
Lorne Waldman
Naseem Mithoowani
CO-COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
Marlys Edwardh
Daniel Sheppard
CO-COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
Courtney Harris
Haley Pitcher
FOR THE INTERVENER
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE APPELLANT
Waldman & Associates
Toronto, Ontario
CO-COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP
Toronto, Ontario
CO-COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT
Ministry of the Attorney General
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE INTERVENER
Monday, September 21, 2015
Monday, September 14, 2015
British Airways Flight 2276 registered as G-VIIO.
British Airways Flight 2276 was a scheduled passenger flight which caught fire during take-off from Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport on 8 September 2015, prompting an aborted take-off and the evacuation of all passengers and crew. The flight, bound for Gatwick Airport near London, had 157 passengers and 13 crew. The aircraft had suffered an uncontained engine failure in the left (#1) GE90 engine.[1]
The aircraft left Terminal 3, Gate E3, at 15:53 local time, and began its take-off from Runway 07L at 16:12 where the incident occurred.[2]
After noticing what the captain later described as a "catastrophic engine failure" and a "loud boom" in the left-hand engine, well before take-off speed, the flight crew aborted the take-off by using the aircraft's brakes and ordered an evacuation of the aircraft.[3] All passengers and crew escaped, with some suffering minor injuries.
The airport's emergency services extinguished the fire within five minutes of the mayday call. Fire officials said that twenty-seven people were taken to Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center to be treated for minor injuries, including cuts and bruises, mostly a result of sliding down the inflatable chutes to escape.[4][5] The fire caused an opening of a large hole in the cargo hold and damage to the engine.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) indicated the fire was caused by failure of the left General Electric GE90 engine, one of two fitted on the plane.[6] The aircraft came to a halt upwind, causing the fire to be blown towards the fuselage; the aircraft sustained localized, but major, structural damage as a result.[7][8] The aircraft was equipped with suppression systems, though the systems did not extinguish the fire.[9]
The runway, one of four, was closed for four hours, and a number of inbound flights were cancelled.[10]
Aircraft
The aircraft involved in the incident was a Boeing 777-236ER, registered as G-VIIO. The aircraft itself is about 17 years old and was delivered new to British Airways on 26 January 1999.[11]
If the aircraft is declared a hull loss, the insurers would have to absorb around £21.4m ($32.8m) to cover the aircraft and liabilities.[12]
Investigation
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the American air accident investigative body, dispatched four investigators to the site the day after.[13] As well as FAA, Boeing and General Electric involvement, the British Air Accidents Investigation Branch has a representative and that representative has appointed "British Airways and the UK Civil Aviation Authority as technical advisors". Initial NTSB findings were that an uncontained engine failure had occurred and that the "left engine and pylon, left fuselage structure and inboard left wing airplane were substantially damaged by the fire".[14]
See also
British Airtours Flight 28M, a similar, although fatal accident, which took place in 1985.
China Airlines Flight 120
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "NTSB Issues Update on the British Airways Engine Fire at Las Vegas". NTSB. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "Flight Info". FlightStats. Retrieved 9 September 2015. (Login required)
Jump up ^ "13 hospitalized after British Airways fire in Las Vegas". Fox 5 Vegas. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ Phipps, Claire. "British Airways plane catches fire at Las Vegas airport". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "British Airways fire: Jet's suppression system didn't work, source says". CNN. 9 September 2015. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ Alcock, Charles (8 September 2015). "Engine Failure Causes Fire on British Airways Boeing 777". AIN Online. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ Waldron, Greg. "Unclear whether BA 777 engine failure was contained". flightglobal.com. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ Kaminski-Morrow, David (9 September 2015). "Weather data suggests crosswind at time of BA 777 fire". Flightglobal. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "British Airways fire: Jet's suppression system didn't work, source says". CNN. 9 September 2015. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "Accident: British Airways B772 at Las Vegas on Sep 8th 2015, rejected takeoff due to engine fire". The Aviation Herald. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ Boeing 777 (G-VIIO)— British Airways — Plane Finder Data
Jump up ^ McNestrie, Adam (9 September 2015). "Aviation market to absorb $33mn BA Vegas loss". Insurance Insider. Retrieved 11 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "NTSB Investigators to Probe Engine Fire on British Airways 777 in Las Vegas". NTSB. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "NTSB Issues Update on the British Airways Engine Fire at Las Vegas". NTSB. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
The aircraft left Terminal 3, Gate E3, at 15:53 local time, and began its take-off from Runway 07L at 16:12 where the incident occurred.[2]
After noticing what the captain later described as a "catastrophic engine failure" and a "loud boom" in the left-hand engine, well before take-off speed, the flight crew aborted the take-off by using the aircraft's brakes and ordered an evacuation of the aircraft.[3] All passengers and crew escaped, with some suffering minor injuries.
The airport's emergency services extinguished the fire within five minutes of the mayday call. Fire officials said that twenty-seven people were taken to Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center to be treated for minor injuries, including cuts and bruises, mostly a result of sliding down the inflatable chutes to escape.[4][5] The fire caused an opening of a large hole in the cargo hold and damage to the engine.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) indicated the fire was caused by failure of the left General Electric GE90 engine, one of two fitted on the plane.[6] The aircraft came to a halt upwind, causing the fire to be blown towards the fuselage; the aircraft sustained localized, but major, structural damage as a result.[7][8] The aircraft was equipped with suppression systems, though the systems did not extinguish the fire.[9]
The runway, one of four, was closed for four hours, and a number of inbound flights were cancelled.[10]
Aircraft
The aircraft involved in the incident was a Boeing 777-236ER, registered as G-VIIO. The aircraft itself is about 17 years old and was delivered new to British Airways on 26 January 1999.[11]
If the aircraft is declared a hull loss, the insurers would have to absorb around £21.4m ($32.8m) to cover the aircraft and liabilities.[12]
Investigation
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), the American air accident investigative body, dispatched four investigators to the site the day after.[13] As well as FAA, Boeing and General Electric involvement, the British Air Accidents Investigation Branch has a representative and that representative has appointed "British Airways and the UK Civil Aviation Authority as technical advisors". Initial NTSB findings were that an uncontained engine failure had occurred and that the "left engine and pylon, left fuselage structure and inboard left wing airplane were substantially damaged by the fire".[14]
See also
British Airtours Flight 28M, a similar, although fatal accident, which took place in 1985.
China Airlines Flight 120
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "NTSB Issues Update on the British Airways Engine Fire at Las Vegas". NTSB. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "Flight Info". FlightStats. Retrieved 9 September 2015. (Login required)
Jump up ^ "13 hospitalized after British Airways fire in Las Vegas". Fox 5 Vegas. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ Phipps, Claire. "British Airways plane catches fire at Las Vegas airport". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "British Airways fire: Jet's suppression system didn't work, source says". CNN. 9 September 2015. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ Alcock, Charles (8 September 2015). "Engine Failure Causes Fire on British Airways Boeing 777". AIN Online. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ Waldron, Greg. "Unclear whether BA 777 engine failure was contained". flightglobal.com. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ Kaminski-Morrow, David (9 September 2015). "Weather data suggests crosswind at time of BA 777 fire". Flightglobal. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "British Airways fire: Jet's suppression system didn't work, source says". CNN. 9 September 2015. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "Accident: British Airways B772 at Las Vegas on Sep 8th 2015, rejected takeoff due to engine fire". The Aviation Herald. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ Boeing 777 (G-VIIO)— British Airways — Plane Finder Data
Jump up ^ McNestrie, Adam (9 September 2015). "Aviation market to absorb $33mn BA Vegas loss". Insurance Insider. Retrieved 11 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "NTSB Investigators to Probe Engine Fire on British Airways 777 in Las Vegas". NTSB. Retrieved 9 September 2015.
Jump up ^ "NTSB Issues Update on the British Airways Engine Fire at Las Vegas". NTSB. Retrieved 10 September 2015.
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
2015, British Airways Flight 2276, a Boeing 777-236ER G-VIIO,
On 8 September 2015, British Airways Flight 2276, a Boeing 777-236ER G-VIIO, aborted its takeoff at Las Vegas McCarren International Airport due to a catastrophic engine failure of its left (#1) General Electric GE90engine, which led to a large fire. The aircraft was evacuated on the main runway. All 189 passengers and crew escaped the aircraft with only 14 people sustaining minor injuries. An NTSB and AAIB investigation is underway with the aircraft already declared a hull loss.[161]
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
The Canadian Transportation Agency INFORMATION FOR SKYGREECE TICKET-HOLDERS copy
INFORMATION FOR SKYGREECE TICKET-HOLDERS
The Canadian Transportation Agency is providing the following advice to passengers who hold tickets for travel on SkyGreece.
If you have purchased a ticket but have not yet travelled, or you are still in transit and your air carrier ceases operations, you should contact your travel agent or other transportation providers as soon as possible to make alternate arrangements.
If you have purchased travel insurance, you should contact the insurance company to see if you are covered.
If you have an unused ticket, you may be eligible for a refund from your credit card company or certain provincial government authorities responsible for travel. Passengers whose travel agents are registered in Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia may contact the following provincial authorities for advice on claims for reimbursement:
Ontario
Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO)
Tel.: 1 888-451-8426
Email: tico@tico.ca
www.tico.ca
Quebec
Office de la protection du consommateur
Tel.: 1-888-672-2556
www.opc.gouv.qc.ca
British Columbia
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority
Tel.: 1-888-564-9963
Email: info@consumerprotectionbc.ca
http://www.consumerprotectionbc.ca/
Residents of other provinces or territories or persons outside Canada should contact their travel agents.
The Agency can handle certain air travel complaints about flights originating in Canada or where the ultimate ticketed destination is Canada by domestic and foreign carriers. Visit our Air Complaints page for information on how the Agency handles complaints related to flight disruptions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)