Docket: IMM-4337-15
Citation:
2016 FC 374
[UNREVISED
ENGLISH CERTIFIED TRANSLATION]
Ottawa, Ontario, April 6, 2016
PRESENT: The Honourable
Mr. Justice Martineau
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
VOGUENS LARECHE
|
|
Applicant
|
|
And
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
This is an
application for judicial review of a decision by an enforcement officer
[officer], which rejected the application for administrative stay made by the
applicant regarding his removal to Haiti, which was to take place on
September 29, 2015.
[2]
In the decision under
review, with respect to the shortterm interest of the younger sister [the
adolescent], who is currently in the applicant’s custody, the officer agreed
that it was not in her best interest if she were to accompany the applicant to
Haiti. Although both parents are unable to care for the adolescent, the officer
found that the applicant’s other sister [the older sister], who is
25 years old, [translation] “could take over and take care of her sister.” In addition, according to the officer, the
Direction de la protection de la jeunesse [DPJ] [translation] “could consider an alternate life path” for the adolescent. At the same time, the
officer found that the applicant’s removal to Haiti [translation] “will not cause his sister irreparable harm
. . . but will require a period of adjustment.”
[3]
The only issue to be
determined in this case is to decide whether the officer’s abovementioned
findings of fact are speculative and unreasonable. Following discussion with
counsel for the parties at the hearing, I have come to the conclusion that the
application became theoretical and that even though I exercised my discretion
to decide the case on the merits, this would have no practical effect in this case.
In particular, I am satisfied that it would serve no useful purpose for the
Court to rule today on the issue of whether or not the officer, before refusing
to postpone the removal date, should have personally verified whether or not
the applicant’s older sister was in fact able to take care of the adolescent in
Canada. It remains that following the stay granted by the Court on
September 28, 2015, by Mr. Justice Harrington, the applicant did have
the time to verify whether the older sister could in fact take care of the
adolescent, or whether she should instead be entrusted into DPJ care—which I
would find normal given that the applicant currently has custody of the
adolescent.
[4]
The respondent
acknowledges that the question regarding what particular arrangements could be
taken with respect to the adolescent’s custody or protection in Canada, should
the applicant be deported to Haiti, was not actually resolved by the officer in
the decision under review and that, in the event that a new removal date is
set, the applicant will still be able to make a new application for
administrative stay in light of the new facts that have emerged since
September 29, 2015. In this respect, counsel agree that the situation
could have markedly changed over six months and that the entire process
will need to be initiated again before another officer.
[5]
The application for
judicial review is therefore dismissed. Counsel agree that there is no serious
question of general importance to be certified in this case.
Email this Content