Beverley Rose Clahar v. Canada, docket IMM-3648-96

     IMM-3648-96

Between:

     BEVERLEY ROSE CLAHAR,

     Applicant,

     - and -

     THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,

     Respondent.

     REASONS FOR ORDER

Muldoon, J.

     The applicant's status is landed, since April 19, 1977, non-citizen, having been convicted on May 14, 1993 of the offence of importing a narcotic into Canada contrary to Section 5.1 of the Narcotic Control Act and sentenced to a term of 28 months' imprisonment. She has not offended since the time of her 1993 offence. Her parole report "glows" indicating that the applicant "successfully completed her day and full parole * * * and the undersigned served as her parole supervisor through the last year. * * * Throughout the undersigned's contact with Ms. Clahar she consistently took her situation seriously and set out to improve her situation. The undersigned found Ms. Clahar to be a very responsible who showed much remorse over her actions. The undersigned has little concern that Ms. Clahar will have difficulties with the law in the future." The applicant's warrant expiry date was September 13, 1995.

     There is little doubt on the evidence and admissions before the adjudicator that the applicant is a person described in paragraph 27(1)(d)(i) of the Immigration Act. Evidence of the applicant's rehabilitation is strong and patent.

     However, despite the foregoing the Minister's delegate, with an illegible signature, on August 21, 1996, issued a subsection 70(5) certificate opining that the applicant is a danger to the public in Canada! This, on the basis of anything and everything on this file is unbelievable. It is an abuse of authority! It would appear to preclude the applicant's appeal to the I.R.B. Appeal Division where she could most likely show that she is rehabilitated within the meaning of that expression in the Act, except that more than five years have not elapsed since September 13, 1995. And the respondent is making sure that five years in Canada will not elapse, even although the status of subsection 70(5) certificates is still under consideration by the Federal Court of Appeal.

     Anyone who has an even hopeless case can proceed under the rules, but once make a misstep and miss a deadline and the Court, on being asked to extend the time, may enquire into the likelihood of success even with the time extended. Here, the applicant is not likely to succeed in light of the section 27 proceedings, let alone the abusive subsection 70(5) certificate.

     The motion to extend the time for filing the applicant's record is dismissed.

Judge

Ottawa, Ontario

April 2, 1997