Search - considered

Justice Shore BETWEEN: JEYLANI SHARIF MOWLANA Applicant and THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION AND THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Respondents ORDER UPON motion on behalf of the Applicant for a stay of removal, scheduled for tomorrow, August 9, 2019, pending the determination of an application for leave and judicial review of a Pre-removal Risk Assessment decision; AND UPON having read and considered the written submissions, as well as having heard the oral submissions of both parties; Subsequent to consideration of the tripartite conjunctive criteria of the Toth v Canada test (Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), (1988) 86 NR 302 (FCA)); RECOGNIZING that the standard of review of an enforcement officer’s decision is that of reasonableness, a strong case must exist within specific context under the circumstances; whereas, there is ample objective and subjective evidence to demonstrate serious peril to life and limb as shown herein (Baron v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2009 FCA 81); ACKNOWLEDGING the higher standard in respect of serious issue on a matter of refusal to defer a stay; and recognizing, if a stay is granted, it has bearing on the underlying judicial review application (Wang v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2001 FCT 148, [2001] FCJ No 295 (TD)); RECOGNIZING the consequences of the Applicant’s crime of absconding food stamps, worth $200,000 committed in 2004 and for which he was convicted in 2011 (food stamps used in his store by which customers did benefit as did he with exchanges for the food stamps, in contravention of the food stamp scheme; the Applicant was sentenced to three years of probation and monthly restitution of food stamp value, which he made in monthly payments until his departure from the United States, when the Applicant was informed that he will be removed to his country of origin, Somalia); all of which the Court weighed against the background of serious peril to the Applicant’s life and limb, if he is returned to his country of origin. ... CONSIDERING this is an exceptional case unto itself in regard to its context; ACKNOWLEDGING the potential of irreparable harm to life and limb of the Applicant as clearly demonstrated in stark potential in the objective and subjective evidence when all country condition documentation is read in context with the subjective evidence of the Applicant on file; AND FURTHER RECOGNIZING that the family of the Applicant is in a refugee camp in Kenya, subsequent to fleeing peril; THUS, CONSIDERING that the balance of convenience favors the Applicant when analyzing the fulsome serious nature of the Applicant’s situation as to the jeopardy to his life, duly noting that his mother and sister were killed and his immediate family was forced to flee to save their lives; all of which must be considered in context of the country conditions of his country of origin; THEREFORE, THIS COURT ORDERS that the stay be granted until the Court finally disposes of the pending application for leave and judicial review. ...

(Salomon Herrada v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2006 FC 1004 [Salomon]; Jozsefne v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2008 FC 1411; and Malagon v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 1068, with respect to the documents considered to have no probative value.) [10]   On July 29, 2019, the applicant was advised of her removal scheduled for August 22, 2019, that is, three weeks after her Direction to Report in which she was informed of the decision regarding her removal. [11]   Having considered the written and oral representations of both parties, the Court is of the opinion that the stay application is without merit (Salomon, above, at paras 30 to 32). [12]   The removal order is reasonable, as the applicant did not meet the three criteria in Toth (Toth v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 NR 302 (FCA)). [13]   With respect to the arguments relating to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter] and international law, removal following an assessment is not contrary to sections 7 and 12 of the Charter. [14]   According to the law, the public interest requires the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to remove any person who is the subject of an enforceable removal order (Shaikh v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 FC 110 at para 39). [15]   For all of these reasons, the applicant ’ s stay application is dismissed. ...

The other years from 1986 to 1991 inclusive are not eligible to be considered as no notice of objection was filed within the time limit of one year and 90 days from the dates of assessment in each case. ... Such can be found in subsection 118.4(1) of the Act which reads as follows: 118.4(1) For the purposes of subsection 6(16), sections 118.2 and 118.3 and this subsection, (a) an impairment is prolonged where it has lasted, or may reasonably be expected to last, for a continuous period of at least 12 months; (b) an individual’s ability to perform a basic activity of daily living is markedly restricted only where all or substantially all of the time, even with therapy and the use of appropriate devices and medication, the individual is blind or is unable (or requires an inordinate amount of time) to perform a basic activity of daily living; (c) a basic activity of daily living in relation to an individual means (i) perceiving, thinking and remembering, (ii) feeding and dressing oneself, (iii) speaking so as to be understood, in a quiet setting, by another person familiar with the individual, (iv) hearing so as to understand, in a quiet setting, another person familiar with the individual, (v) eliminating (bowel or bladder functions), or (vi) walking; and (d) for greater certainty, no other activity, including working, housekeeping or a social or recreational activity, shall be considered as a basic activity of daily living. ...

A review of the materials filed on this application on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant confirms that controversy exists with respect to the relevance of evidence to be considered by the Court. ... I have considered this matter carefully and have concluded that the application has not been properly brought under Rule 341 in light of the competing views of the parties concerning the relevance of the evidence. ...

No mention was made that such payments would be considered in whole or in part as capital. ... Such an amendment at a late stage was considered and refused in the case of The Queen v. ...

In addition to the above the provisions of subsection 230(1) of the Act must be considered. 230. ... These items are considered on capital account. See Canada v. Young, [1989] 1 C.T.C. 421, 89 D.T.C. 5234 (F.C.A.). ...

S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63) (the "Act"), and therefore both securities are deemed to be capital property resulting in the gain therefrom should be considered as a capital gain. ... However, nowhere in this decision was subsection 39(4) discussed or considered. ...

Wakeling indicated in testimony that there were, perhaps, other ways in which her expenses could have been paid — or considered, or categorized — thereby avoiding the implications under subsection 8(3), and indeed that may be true. However, according to the facts available to the Court, subsection 81(3) must be considered as having relevance to this particular matter. ...

These paragraphs, do indeed, as submitted by counsel for the applicants refer to earlier proceedings and paragraph 24 specifically refers to a settlement between the parties and an admission by one of the defendants, I S MacGregor and therefore should not be considered as a proper pleading. But again, these are facts that provable and can be considered relevant to the issue of exemplary damages and accordingly should remain. ...

He submits that he be considered a non-resident with respect to his Canadian Forces Pension income received in 1992 and this income should not be taxable. ... He was not considered by Germany to be a resident of Germany and the Appellant was not taxed by Germany on the pension income in the amount of $22,895.00 in each of 1990 and 1992. ...