Madi v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 648

 

 

Date: 20070615

Docket: IMM-2325-07

Citation: 2007 FC 648

Ottawa, Ontario, June 15, 2007

PRESENT:     The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore

 

BETWEEN:

ABDO MICHEL MADI

LUCIE HANNA WEHBE

LEAH JOIE MADI

Applicants

and

 

THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP

AND IMMIGRATION

Respondent

 

REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER

 

[1]               The Applicant’s removal is scheduled for Monday, June 18, 2007.

 

[2]               The Applicant served the Respondent with a stay motion record on June 15, 2007 in which the Applicant seeks to challenge a Canada Border Service Agency Enforcement Officer’s refusal to defer removal pending determination of the Applicant’s second Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA). The refusal decision was made on May 16, 2007.

[3]               The stay motion arises from a Notice of Application for Leave that was served on June 11, 2007. According to the Notice of Application for Leave, the application for judicial review itself is late and this Court has determined not to grant the extension of time.

 

[4]               The matter is moot given that the second PRRA decision has in fact been rendered today, June 15, 2007.

 

[5]               As a discretionary area of jurisdiction, this Court refuses to entertain the stay motion on the basis of mootness, and also on the basis that the Applicant is, in effect, seeking a last-minute stay motion.

 

[6]               It is clear from the record that the Applicant has known about his impending removal to the United States since May 17, 2007 and has waited until the afternoon of the last work day prior to his removal to seek a stay of deportation.

 

[7]               The Court has determined not to entertain this last minute motion because it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. The Court refers to the comments of Justice Yvon Pinard in Matadeen v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), IMM-3164-00 June 22, 2000, F.C.T.D.):

Indeed, “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.

(Reference is also made to Kroonenfeld v. Canada (1995), 29 Imm. L.R. (2d) 231 (F.C.T.D.); Nananso v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1992), 56 F.T.R. 234; Cyrous Moghaddam v. Canada Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (May 31, 2004) Docket IMM-4879-04 (IMM-4878-04) per Justice Luc Martineau and Iliescu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), (June 1, 2004) Doc. No. IMM-4725-04 (FC) per Justice Michael Kelen.)

 

[8]               The Court exercises its discretion to not entertain this stay motion on the basis of mootness and its last-minute nature. The Applicant could readily have brought a stay of deportation motion at any time following May 17, 2007 in accordance with practice rules.

 

[9]               The Court refuses to entertain the stay motion for the reasons described above.

ORDER

 

THIS COURT ORDERS that the stay motion be denied.

 

 

“Michel M.J. Shore”

FEDERAL COURT

 

NAME OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

 

DOCKET:                                          IMM-2325-07

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                          ABDO MICHEL MADI, LUCIE HANNA WEHBE, LEAH JOIE MADI v.  THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

 

 

MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES

 

 

REASONS FOR ORDER

AND ORDER:                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHORE

 

 

DATED:                                             June 15, 2007

 

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Maria Fernandes Windsor, Ontario	FOR THE APPLICANT
Jamie Todd Toronto, Ontario	FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Maria Fernandes Fernandes Law Offices P.C. Windsor, Ontario	FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada	FOR THE RESPONDENT