Docket: IMM-3893-14
Citation:
2014 FC 493
[UNREVISED ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, May 26, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
GLADYS JOSEPH-TROTTIER
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The applicant is seeking a stay of removal by
this Court following a loss of permanent residence in Canada.
[2]
The importation into Canada of cocaine by the applicant
led to an offence of unlawful importation of a substance listed in Schedule 1
of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19.
[3]
On October 11, 2012, the Immigration Division
concluded that a removal order should be issued against the applicant as a
result of inadmissibility on grounds of serious criminality under
paragraph 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,
SC 2001, c 27 [IRPA].
[4]
Once the removal order was issued, the applicant
lost her permanent resident status under paragraph 46(1)(b) of the IRPA.
[5]
Taking a number of proceedings in a number of
steps to avoid a removal to Haiti, the applicant filed an application for leave
against the removal decision in this Court on the grounds of fear of returning
to Haiti because of her fear of being detained as a [translation] “criminal deportee” as well as her
psychological condition, depressive, and her physical condition, HIV‑positive
in addition to being the biological mother of three children.
[6]
The applicant also stated that she could be the
victim of criminality or even racist persecution because she was married to a
white person.
[7]
The applicant also submitted an application for
permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
This application, although pending, does not have the effect of staying the
removal order.
[8]
As a result of research conducted by the officer
who issued the removal order against the applicant, the record shows that
responses were obtained stating that the applicant could be treated for HIV and
depression in Haiti. The HIV treatments are completely free; the medication for
depression is not.
[9]
The decision‑maker, the removal officer, also
had information specifying that there would be an examination on arrival in
Haiti and that the applicant was advised to have someone pick her up at the
airport, once she arrived.
[10]
The applicant’s record shows that all of the
applicant’s concerns specified above were dealt with separately and as a whole in respect of the
applicant, on the basis of detailed and thorough information from the country the
applicant would be returned to; everything can
be found, for each of the applicant’s concerns, in the record before the Court. This information in the record establishes that the applicant would
not be deprived of care or face a risk to her person, physically or
psychologically, based on the situation she would be subject to.
[11]
For all these reasons, under the tripartite test
in Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR
302 (FCA), the applicant has not met the three conjunctive requirements of the
test to stay her removal.
Email this Content