Date:
20130115
Docket:
IMM-413-13
Citation:
2013 FC 37
Ottawa, Ontario,
January 15, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
|
|
SHIMBI SINGH
REETU GHOTRA
|
|
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
|
|
Respondents
|
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER
[1]
The
matter before the Court is a request for a stay of execution of removal order
scheduled for tomorrow, January 16, 2013.
[2]
Both
members of the couple are fully and gainfully employed (not a burden to
Canadian society but rather in positions needed in the trades as per the
evidence). Letters of reference on file demonstrate that the couple is composed
of individuals who have dedicated and devoted themselves to their children;
and, are considered accomplished and motivated employees, contributing to their
work environment; and, they attend to the needs of their family as a unit. One
of their two children, both of whom are Canadian born, requires special care.
[3]
The
background evidence presents the following picture: a husband and wife, who
have been in Canada for over a decade, married in a Hindu rather than Sikh
ceremony, although both members of the couple are Sikh. The marriage
relationship is allegedly rejected by family in the Punjab, family, which have
become allegedly estranged and hostile to the couple.
[4]
The
couple’s minor son is being successfully treated for a well-documented medical
condition, which has allowed him to be able to function in his controlled
school and family framework within a French language setting. Numerous letters
from health care professionals and educators, including that of Dr. Abe Worenklein, an acclaimed academic and clinician, demonstrate that disruption of the life
of the minor son of the couple would be most detrimental to the son’s welfare,
if, in fact, the family unit would be separated. The very well referenced and
documented findings on file strongly support the request for a stay of removal.
[5]
The
Court recognizes most significant detrimental effects, specifically on the
minor son of the couple, and the couple itself, as a unit, would ensue, if the
removal would be effected.
[6]
The
Toth
v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR
302 (FCA) decision tripartite criteria have been fully satisfied by the members
of the couple. The letter on file, dated December 12, 2012, as signed by Mary Esposito, most significantly support the factual evidence on file. The written pleadings of
the actual counsel on file, although well intentioned, overstate both the
national jurisprudential, constitutional Charter and international instrument
framework, when, in fact, the factual evidence on file speaks for itself amply,
without need for written overstatement.
[7]
Therefore,
the stay is granted until the merits of the recourse pursuant to section 72 of
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC
2001, c 27 [IRPA], as requested, will have been disposed.
ORDER
THIS
COURT ORDERS that the stay be granted until the merits of
the recourse pursuant to section 72 of the Immigration and Refugee
Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA], as requested,
will have been disposed.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Email this Content