Bar v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 129

Date: 20040127

Docket: IMM-432-03

Citation: 2004 FC 129

Ottawa, Ontario, January 27, 2004

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BEAUDRY

BETWEEN:

                                              ALON BAR a.k.a. LUDWIG FAINBERG

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                                 and

                                                  THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                               REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

[1]                 This is a motion for the stay of execution of a removal order that becomes effective on January 28, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. The applicant urges this Court to grant him a stay so that he will not be sent back to Israël while awaiting the final disposition of his application for reconsideration by the Minister of the opinion that there is a danger to public safety, and also his application for reconsideration of the decision made by the Honourable Mr. Justice Noël, dismissing his application for leave and for judicial review.

[2]                 In order to be successful, the applicant must show that there is a serious issue to be tried, that he could suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favours him (Toth v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 6 Imm. L.R. (2d) 123 (F.C.A.).

[3]                 Having heard the parties and reviewed the documents that were filed, I have not been persuaded by the applicant with respect to the second element, i.e. that of an irreparable harm.

[4]                 In this case, the applicant has not persuaded me that he is wanted, or that he risks persecution, by the Israeli authorities. The allegations in his affidavit on this subject are vague and unclear. It would also be speculative to say that he risks torture.

[5]                 The alleged personal inconveniences, for him as well as for his wife and daughter, do not satisfy the notion of irreparable harm in Toth, supra. I therefore do not have to analyze the first prerequisite, namely the existence of a serious issue to be tried.

[6]                 Given the circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that the balance of convenience favours the respondent (subsection 48(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27).

                                                                            ORDER

Accordingly, THE COURT ORDERS that the motion be dismissed.

          "Michel Beaudry"                  

       Judge     

Certified true translation

Kelley A. Harvey, BA, BCL, LLB

                                                                 FEDERAL COURT

                                                          SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                             IMM-432-03    

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           ALON BAR a.k.a. LUDWIG FAINBERG

v.

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND

IMMIGRATION

PLACE OF HEARING:                     OTTAWA, ONTARIO, by teleconference

DATE OF HEARING:                       JANUARY 27, 2004

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER:                                   BEAUDRY J.

DATE OF REASONS:                       JANUARY 27, 2004

APPEARANCES:

Rolland Carrier

and Jeannine Landry                               FOR THE APPLICANT

Michel Pépin                                           FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Jeannine Landry                                     FOR THE APPLICANT

Montréal, Quebec

Morris Rosenberg                                  FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General

of Canada

Montréal, Quebec