Date: 20070601
Docket: IMM-2218-07
Ottawa, Ontario,
June 1, 2007
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
DAWUD
BASCOMBE
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
ORDER
UPON having heard the parties by telephone
conference in the late afternoon of Friday, June 1, 2007, the Court duly
specifies;
WHEREAS the Respondent was served at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon (Friday, June 1,
2007) with an application to stay the removal of the Applicant to Grenada scheduled
for Monday, June 4, 2007 at 8:00 a.m.;
RECOGNIZING that the
Applicant was advised of his removal date in person and in writing on May 17,
2007; and consequently, the Applicant had over two weeks to bring this
application to the attention of the Court, yet this motion was not served until
this afternoon. No reasonable justification has been provided for this delay,
further to discussion with both parties;
ACKNOWLEDGING that the Applicant has a serious criminal conviction in Canada, a fact
that has been entirely omitted from the Applicant’s submissions, the Applicant
has not come to the Court with clean hands;
FURTHERMORE, ACKNOWLEDGING, during a telephone conference with
both parties, that there is no underlying decision that is subject to judicial
review in this stay motion;
RECOGNIZING, that the Court agrees with the Respondent that the Matadeen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration)
(F.C.T.D.), June 22, 2000, (IMM-3164-00), decision
applies wherein Justice Yvon Pinard stated:
Indeed,
“last minute” motions for stays force the respondent to respond without
adequate preparation, do not facilitate the work of this Court, and are not in
the interest of justice; a stay is an extraordinary procedure, which deserves
thorough and thoughtful consideration.
ACKNOWLEDGING that Justice Pinard’s decision
has been followed by this Court in a number of other cases, most recently in Kulbir
Singh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), January
30, 2003, (IMM-530-03), and Varadi v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration) (F.C.T.D.) June 23, 2003, (IMM-4705-03);
DULY NOTING that decisions in the same
vein were rendered in IDOWU v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), (IMM 3558-00); Owusua
v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration),
(IMM-2583-00); Korogodova v.
Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (F.C.T.D.), January 29,
2001, (IMM-376); Vaccarino v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1992] F.C.J. No. 518 (QL);
THIS COURT CONCLUDES that it will not
entertain this last minute application as it would not be in the interests of
justice.
THIS COURT ORDERS that the matter not be entertained by the Court as it would
not be in the interests of justice as the Applicant has not come to the Court
with clean hands.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Email this Content