Date: 20000908
Docket: IMM-4328-00
BETWEEN:
DONETTE ICYLIN SMITH
Applicant
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
BLAIS J.
[1] This is a motion for a stay of a departure order issued by Michelle O'Hara on August 1, 2000.
[2] The departure order was given by hand to the applicant on August 1, 2000.
[3] The applicant has filed and served an application for leave and for judicial review of this departure order on August 16, 2000. In my opinion, the applicant could and should have brought this application for a stay of execution of a departure order much earlier than only one day before the 30 day period.
[4] In Pamela Matadeen v. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (June 22, 2000), IMM-3164-00 (F.C.T.D.), Justice Pinard said:
| ..."last minute" motions for stays force the respondent to respond without adequate preparation, do not facilitate the work of this Court, and are not in the interest of justice; a stay is an extraordinary procedure which deserves thorough and thoughtful consideration (see Herrera v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (May 18, 2000), IMM-2517-99 (F.C.T.D.), Membreno-Garcia c. Canada (M.E.I.), [1992] 3 F.C. 306 (F.C.T.D.) and Petit v. Canada (M.E.I.), [1993] 2 F.C. 505 (F.C.T.D.)); |
SERIOUS ISSUE
[5] The applicant suggests that the immigration officer exceeded her jurisdiction by taking on the role of a legal adviser and failed to advise the applicant whether it would be in her best interest to state her intention to claim Convention refugee status and also that the immigration officer told her that she was deprived of her right to claim a Convention refugee status since she was away from her country of origin Jamaica for nine years and would not be familiar with conditions in the country.
[6] This affirmation is totally contradicted by the affidavit of Greg George in support of the respondent's position.
[7] I have carefully reviewed the statutory declaration signed by the applicant on August 1, 2000 and I do not see anything wrong in the fact that the applicant has signed this document after having received some information from the immigration officer.
[8] In my view, the applicant failed to demonstrate that there is a serious issue to be tried.
[9] Concerning the irreparable harm, the applicant suggests that if the departure order becomes a deportation order by the operation of statute, it will create an irreparable harm to the applicant who will not be able to come back to Canada.
[10] In my opinion, the respondent is right with the argument that there is no possible irreparable harm by the operation of statute.
[11] The applicant failed to demonstrate that she will suffer any irreparable harm if she is deported to Jamaica.
[12] For these reasons, this application for a stay is dismissed.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
September 8, 2000
Email this Content