Date: 19980703
Docket: IMM-2915-98
Between:
STANLEY PAUL POOL
MARIE-CÉLINE POOL
GRAEME BRYAN PAUL POOL
Applicants
And:
THE MINISTER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
ROULEAU J.
[1] The applicants appeared before the Court in Montréal on Monday, June 29, 1998, having filed a motion to stay their deportation which was scheduled for July 5, 1998.
[2] The applicants in the case at bar arrived in Canada on April 3, 1992 from the Seychelles Islands and claimed refugee status. The claim was rejected on January 10, 1994. The applicants appealed this decision on January 24, 1994 and the appeal was dismissed in May 1994.
[3] The applicants filed an application as "members of the post-determination refugee claimants in Canada class". Their application was considered and a negative decision was made on January 8, 1998. In her decision, the post-claim determination officer indicated that she had carefully examined the case and decided that there was no risk to the applicants if they had to leave Canada to return to their country of origin, the Seychelles Islands. She also confirmed the Refugee Division"s decision that legal remedies were available in the Seychelles Islands if the applicants felt threatened or harassed. The officer stated that she could not find, after a six year absence, that the applicants" lives might be threatened if they returned to their country of origin.
[4] On April 15, 1998, the applicants filed an application to allow them to apply inside Canada on humanitarian grounds. The family sought a positive decision based on the fact that they had had two children since their arrival who were born in Canada and who were accordingly Canadian citizens.
[5] The applicants were notified of a negative decision on their application on May 27, 1998. The decision confirmed that a ministerial exemption would not be granted because there was insufficient evidence of humanitarian grounds.
[6] Counsel for the applicants submits that it appears that the officer who exercised the ministerial discretion did not consider the fact that the family included two children who are Canadian citizens, that the family had successfully integrated into Canadian society, that Mr. Pool had always had a job in Canada and that his family was not a burden on Canadian society.
[7] Counsel submits that she filed an application for leave and for judicial review on June 12, 1998. She is accordingly seeking a stay of the deportation of the Pool family which is scheduled for July 5, 1998, until there is a final decision in their case on the application for leave and for judicial review.
[8] Counsel for the applicants submits that there is a serious question to be tried and that the irreparable harm test favours the applicants because their two children who were born in Canada would have to leave the country to accompany their parents to the Seychelles Islands.
[9] She further submits that the balance of convenience favours the applicants because of the upheaval the deportation would cause in the lives of the children. She argues that the harm to the respondent cannot take precedence.
[10] It should be noted that the applicants are not challenging the validity of the removal order. Plainly, the applicants can proceed with their application for judicial review even if they are outside the country. There is a long line of decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal holding that even if removal were to cause serious inconvenience and significant emotional or financial harm, that alone does not constitute exceptional circumstances which would justify the intervention of the Court.
[11] I am satisfied that the applicants and their children who were born in Canada will not suffer irreparable harm within the meaning of the case law.
[12] As I am unable to find that there was a serious question to be tried or that the applicants would suffer irreparable harm and as I am aware of the Minister"s obligation to perform the duties required of her under the Immigration Act , the balance of convenience supports the execution of the removal order.
[13] The application to stay the execution of the removal order is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
July 3, 1998
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
Date: 19980703
Docket: IMM-2915-98
OTTAWA, Ontario, the 3rd DAY of JULY 1998
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Rouleau
Between:
STANLEY PAUL POOL
MARIE-CÉLINE POOL
GRAEME BRYAN PAUL POOL
Applicants
And:
THE MINISTER
Respondent
ORDER
ROULEAU J.
[1] The application to stay the execution of the removal order is dismissed.
P. ROULEAU
JUDGE
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT NO.: IMM-2915-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: STANLEY POOL ET AL. V. MINISTER
PLACE OF HEARING: MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 29, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER OF ROULEAU J.
DATED JULY 3, 1998
APPEARANCES:
MICHELLE LANGELIER FOR THE APPLICANT
PATRICIA DESLAURIERS FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MICHELLE LANGELIER FOR THE APPLICANT
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Email this Content