Date: 20120421

Docket: IMM-3691-12

Citation: 2012 FC 473

[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]

Ottawa, Ontario, April 21, 2012

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Harrington

BETWEEN:

ORDER

            UPON the notice of motion by the principal applicant and her children for a stay of the removal order to Guinea pending the outcome of an application for leave and judicial review of a decision of an enforcement officer;

            UPON REVIEWING the record and considering the oral and written submissions of the parties;

            UPON NOTING that, strictly speaking, the underlying application for leave and judicial review is directed against a notice to appear that is not a decision of an administrative tribunal subject to judicial review;

            WHEREAS even if the application for leave and judicial review had been against the decision of the enforcement officer, dated March 28, 2012, that decision is reasonable;

            WHEREAS it appears that the applicants had accepted the decision when they showed up at the airport for their removal which, however, did not occur due to administrative difficulties;

            CONSIDERING that the actual complaint centres on the manner in which the officer enforced the removal order, which is not a reviewable decision, and that if the applicants had suffered prejudice as a result, the appropriate recourse would have been to take legal action;

            CONSIDERING that this is the third motion filed by the applicants seeking an order to stay their removal from Canada;

            CONSIDERING that by direction dated March 29, 2012, in docket IMM-2408-12, Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer refused to hear a second motion for a stay of removal filed by the applicants on the ground that, following the Court’s refusal to hear their first motion for a stay, the applicants failed to appear for their removal.  According to the direction:

                        [translation]

It is clear that the applicants do not come here with clean hands. The applicants’ conduct shows that they do not respect the Immigration laws, and in this case granting another hearing cannot be in the interests of justice, since it would encourage and reward the applicants for thumbing their noses at the Immigration laws.

            THE COURT ORDERS that:

1.         The motion for a stay of removal is dismissed.

“Sean Harrington”

Certified true translation

Sebastian Desbarats, Translator