Docket: IMM-3385-16
Citation:
2016 FC 925
Ottawa, Ontario, August 12, 2016
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MICHAEL DARE
COLE
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP
AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
The motion for a stay of execution of removal,
in this case, is an abuse of process, a disregard for the administration of
justice and the integrity of the immigration system.
[2]
The Applicant does not present himself before
this Court with “clean hands”. In addition to
serious criminality of bank fraud in the United States, he is in violation of
the immigration system in Canada by having evaded Canada immigration
authorities for six years since disobeying a deportation order, scheduled for
March 31, 2010. The deportation order led the Applicant to request a stay
of such on March 30, 2010, which was refused.
[3]
The Applicant only came to the light of the
immigration authorities subsequent to a traffic violation on July 23,
2016. Arrested, the Applicant has been in detention awaiting removal with
immigration escort.
[4]
An applicant seeking an injunction, an
extraordinary remedy of a discretionary nature, must appear before the Court
with clean hands.
[5]
Applications for a stay of removal are dismissed
in case of disregard of immigration laws and failure to appear for removal (Mohar
v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2005 FC 952).
[6]
Jurisprudence has clearly pointed out that in
such cases, applicants are not entitled to the extraordinary measures which a
stay of removal injunction entails.
[7]
The history of the file consists of a refugee
claim, a PRRA application and an H&C application, all of which were denied.
The Court also notes the underlying lack of credibility on the part of the
Applicant that was found as such in the original refugee claim. It is duly
noted that Justice Yves de Montigny of the Federal Court, at the time, denied a
former stay of removal application (subsequent to a negative PRRA decision in
response to a PRRA application by the Applicant).
[8]
For all of the above reasons, the Applicant’s
stay of removal application will not be entertained.
JUDGMENT
THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that the stay
of removal application not be heard.
"Michel M.J. Shore"
FEDERAL
COURT
SOLICITORS
OF RECORD
|
DOCKET:
|
IMM-3385-16
|
|
STYLE OF CAUSE:
|
MICHAEL DARE COLE v THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
MOTION FOR A STAY OF EXECUTION OF
REMOVAL CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO
|
JUDGMENT
AND REASONS:
|
SHORE J.
|
|
DATED:
|
August 12, 2016
|
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
|
Gjergji Hasa
|
For
The Applicant
|
|
Evan Liosis
|
For
The Respondent
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Waïce Ferdoussi, Attorney Company
Montréal, Quebec
|
For
The Applicant
|
|
William F. Pentney
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Montréal, Quebec
|
For
The Respondent
|
Email this Content