Date:
20130503
Docket:
IMM-3204-13
Citation:
2013 FC 467
Ottawa, Ontario,
May 3, 2013
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
BETWEEN:
|
|
MARCELLINUS AIMABLE
|
|
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
|
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
|
|
Respondent
|
|
|
|
|
REASONS FOR
ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
The
Applicant has filed, yesterday, Thursday, May 2, 2013, in the late afternoon, a
motion for a stay of removal, which removal is scheduled for Sunday, May 5,
2013, without having requested a stay of removal from the Referrals Unit of the
Canada Border Services Agency [CBSA].
[2]
The
Applicant was arrested on November 27, 2012, at his place of employment; and,
subsequently released on condition that any change of address would be given to
the CBSA authorities prior to any move by the Applicant.
[3]
Subsequent
to a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment [PRRA], which was rejected on March 22, 2013,
a bond compliance check at the Applicant’s said place of residence did not find
that the Applicant resided therein; rather, that the Applicant had not been known
to have been registered as a tenant, nor had he been known to have attended the
address in question.
[4]
A
negative PRRA decision was delivered to the Applicant only when he was found;
and, the officer conducting the arrest, determined that the Applicant was a
flight risk, unlikely to appear for removal.
[5]
It
is recalled that the Applicant’s case history, as per November 27, 2012,
reveals that he stated he had no fear of returning to St. Lucia.
[6]
This
Court determined that the tripartite conjunctive Toth v Canada
(Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302 (FCA) decision
test had not been met for any of the criteria, the Court, thus, concluded that
the Applicant’s motion for a stay of removal is denied.
[7]
The
fact that a spousal sponsorship application has been made in December of 2012,
does not change the evaluation as to the Toth test in the Applicant’s
case; the Applicant had not resided with his said partner until February 2013,
although he had allegedly been married for more than a year prior to that. In
respect of the two children of the Applicant’s spouse, any significant
relationship he may have allegedly had is left in question due to the very
short period of time during which he resided with his spouse and her adolescent
children.
[8]
The
health issue which was raised by the Applicant is evidenced only by diagnostic
tests that have been prescribed on what appears to be, a non urgent basis as
the tests are for the end of June and anti inflammatories were prescribed. No
evidence as to any specific health issue, other than complaints about foot and
arm pain have been registered with a request by a medical practitioner for
cardiological testing without demonstration of any urgency.
[9]
For
all of the above reasons, the Applicant’s motion for a stay of removal is
denied.
ORDER
THIS
COURT ORDERS that the Applicant’s motion for a stay of
removal be denied.
“Michel M.J. Shore”
Email this Content