Date: 20090807
Docket: IMM-3697-09
Citation: 2009 FC 804
Ottawa, Ontario, August 7,
2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
NAMDEO
RAMRATTAN
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDESS
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Introduction
[1]
Section
48 of the Immigration and Refugee Protect Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 (IRPA),
provides that an enforceable removal order must be put into effect as soon as
practicable. The Applicant has remained in Canada for nineteen years without personal
status in Canada. An
enforceable removal order is in effect.
II. Judicial Procedure
[2]
The
Applicant requests a stay of removal, scheduled for August 7, 2009 at 11:55
p.m. An underlying application for leave and for judicial review challenges a
negative Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) decision of June 8, 2009.
III. Background
[3]
Mr. Namdeo Ramrattan, a citizen of Trinidad
and Tobago came to Canada in 1990 with an authorized work permit for one year.
For the last nineteen years, since the expiration of the work permit, he has
remained in Canada and worked for most of those years for a multi-national
company on record. Reference is made to letters, Exhibits A to F inclusive,
from the multi-national company in question under the company’s letterhead,
acknowledging the situation as it exists, wherein the position Mr. Ramrattan
occupies is considered unique in its skill-set and, also, in the manner by
which Mr. Ramrattan fulfills its challenging needs.
[4]
Married with three children in Trinidad and Tobago, Mr. Ramrattan
is in a relationship in Canada since 1993 with Ms. Lorraine Matheson.
[5]
After eleven years in Canada, Mr. Ramrattan made a claim for refugee status in 2001. The
Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) determined that he is neither a Convention
refugee nor a person in need of protection. Mr. Ramrattan discontinued an
application for leave and for judicial review in 2003.
[6]
As Mr. Ramrattan’s common-law relationship with Ms. Matheson was
not considered adequate in substance, his humanitarian and compassionate
(H&C) application was denied.
[7]
Subsequent to a PRRA, the Applicant applied for permanent
residence, on a sponsorship application filed by Ms. Matheson. The sponsorship
application is still pending.
[8]
A subsequent PRRA decision, denied on
June 8, 2009, was received by Mr. Ramrattan on July 6, 2009. This decision is now
challenged in the underlying application for leave and for judicial review.
IV.
Issue
[9]
Has the Applicant satisfied all three parts of the conjunctive
test for a stay as set out in Toth v. Canada (Minister of
Employment and Immigration) (1988),
86 N.R. 302?
V. Analysis
[10]
Extraordinary equitable relief in such a case would necessitate a
positive conjunctive tri-partite Toth test assessment. The balance of
convenience in this case is in favour of the public interest in executing the
deportation order pursuant to section 48.
[11]
Subsequent to a string of denials in regard to (1) a refugee
claim; (2) an H&C application; and (3) a PRRA application, the Applicant
has not established any serious issue regarding the PRRA assessment, in and of
itself.
[12]
Although the multi-national company in question has communicated
glowing reports in respect of both the unique nature of the skill-set for the work
and the effective manner by which Mr. Ramrattan performs his duties
(Exhibit F), to date, the multi-national company has not, as yet, sponsored him
for this unique work skill-set. As a result, currently, it is outside of the
purview of this specific decision, which, in fact, might have been otherwise
had such a work sponsorship application been in progress. That would be for the
multi-national company in question to effect subsequent to copies of its
correspondence which have been forwarded to the Court, if the multi-national
company is serious about the very clear positive assertions that have been made
in Mr. Ramrattan’s regard, including its statement “…and if given the chance,
we are sure that he will certainly be an asset to Canada”.
[13]
In conclusion, however, without a work sponsorship application of
the multi-national company in question, the Applicant has failed to establish all
three prongs of the Toth test: serious issue, irreparable harm and balance
of convenience.
VI.
Conclusion
[14]
Therefore, based on the most current
evidence on file, the Motion for a stay of removal is denied.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT ORDERS that the Motion for a stay of removal be denied.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Email this Content