Date: 20130514
Docket: IMM-9110-12
Citation: 2013 FC 507
[UNREVISED
ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Montréal, Quebec, May 14, 2013
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr.
Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
|
|
GREGORY CHARLES
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
decision was pursuant to an application for judicial review of a decision cancelling
the applicant’s stay and dismissing his appeal of a removal order by the
Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB)
dated July 10, 2012.
[2]
Having
lived in Canada since 1995, having spent his teenage years here and having a
family and child, the applicant was declared inadmissible for serious criminality,
namely, the offence described at section 348 of the Criminal Code, RSC
1985, c C-46. The applicant had also accumulated other convictions and criminal
charges without reporting these to the IRB. The applicant has shown no remorse
for these acts and blames others for how his life has turned out.
[3]
After
being granted a stay, the applicant showed no signs of rehabilitation and, in
light of the evidence that was properly analyzed and weighed by the specialized
tribunal, the IRB refused to exercise its discretion in the applicant’s favour.
The cancellation of the applicant’s stay of removal is entirely reasonable in
the circumstances.
[4]
Despite
a five-year stay ordered to give the applicant an opportunity to rehabilitate
himself and respect the imposed conditions, he committed further criminal acts,
which he did not even report to the IRB. Among other things, he was convicted
of an assault that took place on March 26, 2012, and he failed to comply with a
promise to appear. The applicant has not challenged his removal order; instead,
he is basing his application on humanitarian and compassionate considerations,
including the best interests of his child born a year and a half ago.
[5]
The
standard of review applicable to this case is reasonableness (see Canada
(Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Khosa, 2009 SCC 12, [2009] 1 SCR
339).
[6]
The
applicant has not demonstrated a particularly strong emotional bond with his
child. He gives money to the child’s mother to cover childcare expenses. The
fact that he took his child to the park before being incarcerated does not in
itself establish an emotional bond, given that the child is only one and a half
years old.
[7]
With
respect to the risks associated with returning to Haiti, the Court is cognizant
of paragraph 58 of Chieu v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration), 2002 SCC 3, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84, which states that “[i]n such
cases, there will be no likely country of removal at the time of the appeal and
the I.A.D. cannot therefore consider foreign hardship.” This is because the
applicant has no likely country of removal, so the conditions in Haiti are not relevant
to the appeal at issue.
[8]
For
all these reasons, the Court dismisses the applicant’s application for judicial
review.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT ORDERS that the applicant’s
application for judicial review be dismissed; there is no question of general
importance to certify.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Certified true translation
Francie Gow, BCL, LLB
Email this Content