Date: 20060828
Docket: IMM-4615-06
Citation: 2006
FC 1033
Toronto, Ontario, August 28, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
JAGNARAINE
SINGH
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
INTRODUCTION
[1]
The
Applicant, Mr. Jagnaraine Singh, has filed a motion for a stay of execution of
the removal order against him.
[2]
The Court
has considered all the evidence to determine the matter.
BACKGROUND
[3]
Mr.
Singh’s stated intention was to establish permanent residency in Canada but he
was not in possession of an immigrant visa before he arrived in Canada. Mr. Singh made a claim for
refugee protection on August 16, 2001.
[4]
He was
issued a departure order now deemed to be a Deportation order as no certificate
of departure was issued.
[5]
Married in
2003.
[6]
16DEC2003
and 14SEP2004: hearings of Mr. Singh’s claim for Refugee Protection.
[7]
09FEB2005:
Found not to be a Convention Refugee and excluded pursuant to Article 1F(A) of
the Refugee Convention by the Immigration and Refugee Board.
[8]
15FEB2005;
Refugee Protection Division (RPD) member found that there were serious reasons
for considering that Mr. Singh has been complicit in crimes against humanity,
namely, torture and other inhumane acts perpetrated by the Guyanese police
between 1998 and 2001 (a police force which Mr. Singh had voluntarily joined
eighteen years prior to his departure).
[9]
10MAR2005:
Filed an application for leave for judicial review of the negative RDP
decision.
[10]
19OCT2005:
Leave for judicial review of the negative RPD decision was dismissed.
[11]
21OCT2005:
Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) was initiated.
[12]
06FEB2006:
Negative PRRA results.
[13]
09JUN2006:
Application for Permanent Residence as a member of the Spouse or Common-Law partner
in Canada Class was refused. It is recognized that Mr. Singh’s common law
wife and his son, both have a support system in Canada to assist them; this is in addition to
having each other.
[14]
The
balance of any inconvenience which Mr. Singh may suffer as a result of his
departure does not outweigh the public interest which the Respondent seeks to
maintain.
[15]
Paragraph
10 of Ramratran v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety
and Emergency Preparedness),
2006 FC 377, [2007] F.C.J. No. 472 (QL):
The test for granting a stay is well established. The Applicants must
establish:
(1) That there is a serious question to be tried;
(2) That the moving party would, unless the
injunction is granted, suffer irreparable harm; and
(3) That the balance of convenience favours the moving party.
Toth v. Canada
(Minister of Employment and Immigration). (1988), 86 N.R. 302 (F.C.A.); RJR-MacDonald
Inc. v. Canada (A.G.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311
[16]
Since the
balance favours the Respondent, therefore the motion for stay of removal is
dismissed.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS that the stay of removal be
dismissed.
“Michael M. J. Shore”
FEDERAL COURT
NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: IMM-4615-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: JAGNARAINE
SINGH
v. THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
PLACE OF
HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF
HEARING: August
28, 2006
REASONS FOR ORDER: SHORE J.
DATED: August
28, 2006
APPEARANCES:
|
Mr. Robert I.
Blanshay
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Ms. Mielka
Visnic
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD:
|
ROBERT I.
BLANSHAY
Toronto, Ontario
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
JOHN H. SIMS,
Q.C.
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
Email this Content