Sorokin v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2007 FC 355

 

 

 

 

Date: 20070403

Docket: IMM-1287-07

Citation: 2007 FC 355

Toronto, Ontario, April 3, 2007

PRESENT:     The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes

 

BETWEEN:

YURI SOROKIN

MICHAL OMER

HEN HALAHMI

ADAM OMER

ROMI OMER

Applicants

and

 

THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY

AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Respondent

 

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

 

[1]               This is a motion requesting a stay of Removal Order directed against the applicants that they be removed to Israel in the near future.  A stay is requested pending deposition of an application for leave challenging the removals officer’s decision to remove the applicants, asserting a number of grounds for challenge including inadequacy of reasons and failure to give proper consideration particularly to the circumstances of the children, the oldest of which suffers psychological stress and two middle children being in grade one and seeking to complete their school year.

 

 

[2]               Applicants seeking a stay of removal must demonstrate that the tri-partite test applied in these circumstances favours the granting of a stay, that test is:

                        1.         Is there a serious issue;

            .           2.         Will the Applicants suffer irreparable harm;

                        3.         Does the balance of convenience favour a stay.

 

[3]               As to the overriding consideration, Chowdhury v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2006 F.C. 663 at paragraph 4, states the matter concisely: a removal officer has only a limited degree of discretion to defer removal; if there is a valid and enforceable removal order immediate removal should be the rule and deferral the exception; a deferral decision should only be set aside only if it is patently unreasonable.

 

[4]               As to the first of the criteria, serious issue, the threshold to be met by the Applicants is low, but it still exists.  Here the Applicants argue about the Officer’s written reasons were too brief and failed to demonstrate that issues such as best interests of the children and psychological stress upon the oldest who witnessed a bombing in Israel, were not properly considered.  Justice Shore in Tulina-Litvin v. Canada (MPSEP) 2007 F.C. 105 at paragraphs 19 & 27 reviews the state of the jurisprudence and concludes that a statement “After reviewing the facts and allegations included in your request, this confirms that deferral of removal is refused” is adequate.  There is no necessity for more formal, written reasons to be required for administrative reasons in such a matter.

 

 

 

 

[5]               It is questionable whether a serious issue has been raised here.  However, in view of my conclusions as to irreparable harm and balance of convenience, it is unnecessary to consider the first criteria further.

 

[6]               As to irreparable harm, referring again to Tulina-Litvin v. Canada (MPSEP) 2007 F.C. 105 at paragraphs 47 to 49, fear of discrimination in Israel, such as because of a Christian-Jewish marriage, or compulsory military service, does not constitute irreparable harm.  These were two grounds raised here.  Some criteria that may constitute irreparable harm were set out in Varga v. Canada (MEI) 2006 F.C.A. 324 at paragraphs 43 to 50.  They include risk of death or torture or inhumane treatment.  These issues have not been raised here.  Irreparable harm has not been made out.

 

[7]               As to the balance of convenience, the two middle children are in grade one and schooling will not be seriously disrupted.  The youngest child in not yet in school.  The oldest child who witnessed a bombing incident in Israel with gory loss of life has psychological issues but a deferral of a few months does not appear to be something which will come to grips with such a long term problem.  The balance of convenience does not favour the Applicants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

 

1.                  The motion is dismissed.

 

2.                  No Order as to costs.

 

“Roger T. Hughes”

 

 

 

FEDERAL COURT

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                              IMM-1287-07

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:               YURI SOROKIN ET AL.

 

                                                and

 

MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPARDNESS

 

PLACE OF HEARING:        Toronto, Ontario

 

DATE OF HEARING:          April 2, 2007

 

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER:                       Hughes, J.

 

DATED:                                 April 3, 2007

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Mr. Lorne Waldman                                                                FOR THE APPLICANT

 

Ms. Angela Marinos                                                                 FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

 

Waldman & Associates                                                            FOR THE APPLICANT

Barristers & Solicitors

Toronto, Ontario

 

John H. Sims, Q.C.                                                                  FOR THE RESPONDENT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Department of Justice              

Toronto Ontario