Murray v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2004 FC 1652

Date: 20041124

Docket: IMM-9440-04

Citation: 2004 FC 1652

BETWEEN:

SHELLEY ANNE MURRAY

Applicant

and

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

Let the attached certified transcript of my Reasons for Order delivered orally from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on the 22^nd day of November, 2004, now edited, be filed to comply with section 51 of the Federal Court Act.

          "A. Mactavish"           

                                                                                                                                       Judge                   

Toronto, Ontario

November 24^th, 2004

                                                                                             Toronto, Ontario

--- Excerpt commencing on Monday, November 22, 2004       at 9:46 a.m.

THE REGISTRAR: The Court is now resumed.

DECISION FROM THE BENCH

THE COURT: Shelly Anne Murray seeks a stay of her removal to Barbados, which is now scheduled for November 27, 2004. She asks that her removal be stayed pending the outcome of her application for permanent residence.

In an application such as this, an applicant for a stay is required to show three things: Firstly, that the underlying application for judicial review raises a serious issue; secondly, that she will suffer irreparable harm if she is removed from Canada and thirdly, that the balance of convenience favours granting a stay.

The test is conjunctive: that means that an applicant must be able to establish all three elements of the test.

In this case, the underlying judicial review application relates to a decision of a pre-removal risk assessment officer. Ms Murray has not identified any errors in the PRRA officer's decision and thus I cannot conclude that her motion for a stay raises a serious issue.

In so far as the question of irreparable harm is concerned, Ms Murray says that it would be hard for her to adapt if she were required to return to Barbados after 11 years in Canada. While she is employed in this country, Ms Murray does not have a job in Barbados and no place to live in that country.

The case law on this point is clear: irreparable harm means something more than the inconvenience that will inevitably result from removal. While I appreciate that returning to Barbados will undoubtedly disrupt Ms Murray's life, and that she would no doubt prefer to stay in Canada, unfortunately, that does not amount to irreparable harm as the term has been interpreted in the case law.

In the circumstances, the balance of convenience clearly favours the Minister. As a result, I have no alternative but to dismiss Ms Murray's application for a stay.

Thank you very much. We are adjourned.

THE REGISTRAR: This case is concluded.

--- Whereupon the hearing was concluded

    at 9:55 a.m. on Monday, November 22, 2004