Date: 20100319
Docket: IMM-1521-10
Citation: 2010 FC 324
Ottawa, Ontario, March 19, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN:
MARJAN
PULO and REDON PULO
Applicants
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
The
applicants requested an urgent hearing of their motion for a stay of their
removal. I indicated to their counsel, through the Court’s offices, that their
motion would not be heard. The reasons for that decision follow.
[2]
The
applicant brothers are citizens of Albania.
They entered Canada on May 19, 2002, at Toronto, using forged Greek
passports. They claimed refugee status on June 18, 2002. Their claim was based
on fear of persecution because of their father’s political opinion. Their
claims were denied on October 8, 2003, and this Court dismissed an application
for leave and judicial review of that decision by Order dated May 3, 2004.
[3]
The
applicants then made a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) application and an
application for an exemption from making a permanent residence from outside of Canada on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds (H&C) Application. On February 25, 2010, the
applicants were informed that both the PRRA and H&C Application had been
refused on December 30, 2009.
[4]
The
application underlying the motion for a stay is stated to be with respect to
both the PRRA and the H&C decisions. As the respondent correctly notes, an
application in this Court is to be restricted to one decision; accordingly, the
applicants ought to have brought two applications and two motions for a stay of
removal. Nonetheless, that is not the basis on which I refused to hear their
motion for a stay of removal.
[5]
The applicants’
record indicates that they were served with a Direction to Report for Removal
to take place on March 19, 2010. That Direction indicates that it was served on
them on March 1, 2010 – a full 17 days before the date scheduled for removal.
The applicants took no steps to defer or stay the removal until they filed this
motion with the Court on March 19, 2010.
[6]
The relief
the applicants seek, a stay of their removal from Canada, is equitable discretionary relief. The
Court hears many such motions on the dates set for General Sittings, after
proper notice to the Court and the opposite party. As an illustration, it is
noted that the Court is scheduled to hear 12 such motions at the General
Sittings in Toronto on March 22, 2010.
[7]
Motions
for a stay require the respondent(s) to respond by putting all of the
information it considers relevant before the Court. In rare and truly urgent
circumstances the Court may be prepared to forego the filing of respondent’s
record. However, the circumstances in which the respondent will be obliged to
make submissions to the Court without having adequate time to prepare will be
rarer. Justice is not served if a party is forced to respond ill-prepared.
Equally, Justice is not served if a Judge is required to hear and rule on such
a motion without proper preparation and without the benefit of reasoned
submissions.
[8]
The
applicants waited until the eleventh hour to file and serve their motion. The
Court understands that they have retained new counsel. They say that they lost
confidence with those who previously represented them. Nonetheless, they have
offered no explanation for the delay in bringing this motion. A party who
seeks equity must do equity. The applicants cannot expect the respondent or
this Court to automatically respond on a timetable of their own making.
[9]
It is
unfair and unjust to ask that the respondent and this Court jump through hoops
when the applicants had every opportunity to bring this motion on a regularly
scheduled day for hearing motions. For these reasons the Court refuses to hear
this motion.
THIS COURT
ORDERS that the applicants’ motion for a stay of
removal from Canada currently scheduled for today
at 7:10 p.m. will not be heard by this Court today on an urgent basis.
Email this Content