Docket: IMM-2065-16
Citation:
2017 FC 44
Toronto, Ontario, January 12, 2017
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Shore
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
PANAGIOTIS
GEORGIOU
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1]
Upon an application for judicial review in which
the background chronology of facts is not in dispute;
[2]
Acknowledging that the Memoranda of Fact and Law
of both respective parties have been duly read and taken into consideration, as
have the respective parties oral pleadings, subsequent to having taken into
account all respective written materials submitted therewith;
[3]
Recognizing that remaining in Canada is not an
option for individuals who have no legal basis for such. The act of being parents
of Canadian-born children is not enough, in and of itself, to establish a
reason for remaining in Canada;
[4]
Acknowledging that the Applicant’s spouse had
not met the requisite residency requirements in respect of physical presence in
Canada;
[5]
Understanding that the removal order on which
this judicial review is based does not prevent the Applicant to be re-admitted
subsequent to an immigration application that would consequently, under met
conditions, accord re-entry into Canada;
[6]
Nevertheless, a valid matter remains that has
not been accorded adequate consideration; that is, as specified in paragraphs
36-39 of the Applicant’s Memorandum of Fact and Law, as to the failure to
having adequately considered; and this, addressed as per Kanthasamy v Canada
(Citizenship and Immigration), 2015 SCC 61 [Kanthasamy], the best
interests of the children on the basis of clear, significant evidence provided
by the Applicant;
[7]
Recognizing that was also the very underlying
basis for which the stay of removal was granted by Justice Anne-Marie McDonald
in respect of the removal order that had not demonstrated an adequate
consideration of the “best interests of the children”;
[8]
Acknowledging that all else as stated by the
Respondent is accepted by the Court, except that the “best
interests of the children” have not yet been properly assessed on the
criteria as set out in the above specified Kanthasamy judgment of the
Supreme Court of Canada;
[9]
Therefore, the judicial review is granted; and,
the entire matter is to be remitted thereon to another officer for
consideration anew on the basis of the above.
Email this Content