Ledda v. MCI was an interesting and complex case for this office.
Ledda was a long term permanent resident of Canada. 14 years after coming to Canada, he was convicted of uttering a forged cheque of less than $500. 3 years after that, he was convicted of a sexual assault for which he received a year's sentence.
On the suggestion of his then counsel, who had no experience in immigration law, Ledda did not appeal the removal order that resulted from his convictions.
When we were retained (after CBSA contacted Ledda for removal) we sought to file an appeal with the IAD on the basis that of incompetence of counsel. The IAD refused to reopen or extend the time to file the notice of appeal. To prevent Ledda's removal, we had to seek an emergency stay before the Federal Court of Canada.
The stay was granted because we satisfied Mr. Justice Lemieux that the Applicant met the tripartite test:
 The tri-partite test to obtain a stay is well-known. In my view, the applicant has met the serious question to be tried test. The serious issue is whether the IAD member properly took into account the relevant factors to extend time for the Applicant to commence an appeal when he found that the Applicant’s former counsel was incompetent, particularly in not filing a notice of appeal from the ID decision to issue a deportation order against him and also finding he did have an arguable case for a discretionary stay on conditions.
 I agree with counsel for the Applicant the IAD’s jurisdiction has yet to be engaged given that the member refused to extend time for him to engage in the IAD’s discretionary jurisdiction by refusing time to file a notice of appeal from the ID’s decision. His removal prior to leave being granted and if granted until the judicial review application is decided would cause the loss of the IAD jurisdiction under section 71 of the IRPA.
 In short, there is no present appeal to the IAD by the Applicant. None of the cases cited by Counsel for the Respondent deal with the specific factual circumstances of this case. Justice Blanchard’s decision in Rumpler v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1485,  3 FCR 702 (Rumpler 2006) did not turn on section 71 of the IRPA and the issue of mootness was not decided (see paragraphs 12 and 13) and Justice Pinard expressed the view at paragraph 13 of Rumpler 2008 that the IAD had not continuing jurisdiction despite the fact he had left Canada and had executed the removal order before he filed a notice of appeal.
It is imperative for any individual, when facing removal proceedings, that they approach counsel that have experience in this area.
Raj Sharma JD LLM