Date:
20130326
Docket:
IMM-2182-12
Citation:
2013 FC 302
Ottawa, Ontario,
March 26, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
BETWEEN:
|
|
VITO CAMILLO BAILEY RICKETTS
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I.
Overview
[1]
Mr
Vito Camillo Bailey Ricketts, originally from Jamaica, has been a permanent
resident of Canada since 1998. In 2009, Mr Ricketts was convicted of possession
of a restricted firearm, carrying a concealed weapon, and drug possession. A
panel of the Immigration Division (ID) found Mr Ricketts inadmissible to Canada for serious criminality. He appealed that finding to the Immigration Appeal Division
(IAD).
[2]
Mr
Ricketts was unrepresented by counsel before IAD. His lawyer had previously
removed himself as counsel of record, although he failed to notify Mr Ricketts
directly. When he first appeared before the IAD in September 2011, Mr Ricketts
requested and was granted an adjournment, on a peremptory basis, to January
2012. In the interim, Mr Ricketts met with his former counsel and paid some of
his outstanding fees. He believed that his lawyer would represent him at the
January hearing. However, three days before the hearing, the lawyer sent Mr
Ricketts a letter stating that he would not be appearing and noting that he was
no longer counsel of record.
[3]
Mr
Ricketts appeared at the hearing and the IAD dealt with his appeal, ultimately
dismissing it. The only issue before the IAD was whether there were sufficient
humanitarian and compassionate factors in Mr Ricketts’ favour to warrant a
reprieve from his removal. The IAD considered all the relevant factors and
concluded that there were insufficient humanitarian and compassionate
circumstances to justify special relief.
[4]
Mr
Ricketts argues that the IAD treated him unfairly by not adjourning the
hearing. He also submits that he was prejudiced by the conduct of his former
counsel. In my view, Mr Ricketts had a fair hearing before the IAD. Therefore,
I must dismiss his application for judicial review.
[5]
The
issue is whether Mr Ricketts was treated unfairly.
II. Did the IAD treat Mr
Ricketts unfairly by proceeding in the absence of counsel?
[6]
Mr
Ricketts argues that he was treated unfairly in four respects. First, the IAD
refused to adjourn the hearing. Second, the IAD erred by treating the hearing
as peremptory. Third, he was prejudiced by the absence of counsel. Fourth, the
hearing itself was unfair because he had only a brief opportunity to review the
documents before the IAD and had no chance to ask for a stay of his removal.
[7]
There
is no evidence that Mr Ricketts ever asked the IAD for an adjournment. At his
September 2011 hearing, Mr Ricketts had requested an adjournment and presumably
could have done so again. He had been informed that the hearing was peremptory,
but that did not mean that an adjournment would be denied even if circumstances
justified it. Given the absence of a specific request, Mr Ricketts cannot argue
that the IAD treated him unfairly by going ahead with the hearing.
[8]
Mr
Ricketts was aware that the hearing was to be treated as peremptory, and he had
been told at his September 2011 hearing what that meant – that the next hearing
would proceed whether he had retained counsel or not. Again, I can see nothing
unfair about the IAD’s decision to proceed.
[9]
Mr
Ricketts learned on January 9, 2012 that he would not be represented at the
hearing. He told the IAD that he was ready to proceed, although he would have
preferred having a lawyer with him. He was made aware in September 2011 that
his lawyer would no longer be representing him, but tried to retain him again
in December 2011. This attempt turned out to be unsuccessful; according to the
lawyer’s letter, this was due to the lawyer’s inability to contact Mr Ricketts
and Mr Ricketts’ failure to attend scheduled meetings. In my view, Mr Ricketts
was given an adequate opportunity to obtain legal representation. On the day of
the hearing, he brought his witnesses with him and indicated his readiness to
proceed. I cannot see any unfairness arising from the fact that he was
unrepresented.
[10]
At
the hearing, the IAD afforded Mr Ricketts half an hour to review 30 pages of
documentation. The documents related to Mr Ricketts’ criminal behaviour, so it
is likely that he was already aware of their contents. He did not ask the IAD
for more time. Nor did he make any request for a stay of removal, even though
he was aware of this possibility and the IAD informed him that he could make
submissions on that point. In the circumstances, I cannot see any unfairness to
Mr Ricketts in the manner in which the IAD handled the hearing. Further, in the
absence of a specific request, it was not obliged to consider granting Mr
Ricketts a stay.
[11]
Accordingly,
I cannot find any support for Mr Ricketts’ contention that he was treated
unfairly.
III. Conclusion and
Disposition
[12]
Mr
Ricketts was provided ample opportunity to secure counsel to represent him
before the IAD. In any case, however, he did not request an adjournment. He felt
ready to proceed, brought two witnesses with him, and was provided a fair
opportunity to participate in his hearing. In my view, he was treated fairly.
Therefore, I must dismiss this application for judicial review. Neither party
proposed a question of general importance for me to certify, and none is
stated.
JUDGMENT
THIS
COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:
1.
The
application for judicial review is dismissed.
2.
No
question of general importance is stated.
“James W. O’Reilly”
Email this Content