Docket: IMM-132-16
Citation:
2016 FC 39
Vancouver, British Columbia, January 12, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
HUSSEIN SEFU
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
MINISTER OF PUBLIC
SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
Respondent
|
ORDER AND REASONS
[1]
UPON the Court
having received a Motion in respect of an Applicant for a stay of Removal Order
in regard to a removal set for January 13, 2016.
[2]
UPON having read
the material submitted to the Court.
[3]
AND UPON having
heard counsel for the parties in a hearing at General Sittings.
[4]
In the context of the Applicant, he has failed
to make full and frank disclosure in respect of his background. Such failure of
disclosure is detrimental to the granting of equitable relief. It is important
for a Court to know all relevant facts in a case before it.
[5]
The Applicant has not disclosed his situation in
Canada as to the set of facts on which he finds himself before the Court. The
Applicant has not explained adequately the matter of his arrest upon arrival in
Canada.
[6]
The Applicant’s evidence per se states he
did not know that he had been in the United States, nor that he had come to
Canada until having been informed of such. The Applicant did not adequately explain
how he came to the U.S., nor that he had entered the U.S., although having himself
shown, his own passport to the American Immigration Authorities. The pertinent
evidence demonstrates that the Applicant did not act in an open or informative
manner with the border or immigration authorities of Canada (nor does his
affidavit inform more so); nor are key factors in that regard known to this
Court, such as with whom he had travelled, as he was found with another
individual at the Canada-U.S. border.
[7]
As the Applicant did not make full and frank
disclosure, the facts weigh against the granting of equitable relief.
[8]
As an interlocutory injunction in respect of a
stay of execution of removal is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy, it
is not available in circumstances of failure to disclose pertinent, essential,
or primordial information.
[9]
As the Applicant does not have “clean hands” in
regard to the Canadian Authorities as per Brunton v Canada (MPSEP), 2006
FC 33, having shown disregard for Canadian Immigration laws, or does not have “clean
hands”, the Court has decided that it will not entertain the Motion for a stay
of removal on its substance.
Email this Content