Date: 19980514
Docket: IMM-1868-98
BETWEEN:
SADRUDIN HASSANALI SIDI,
Applicant,
- and -
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR ORDER
(Delivered orally from the Bench on April 21, 1998, as edited)
MCKEOWN J.
[1] The applicant seeks a stay prohibiting the respondent from removing the applicant from Canada until such time as there has been a decision on the applicant's application for leave and for judicial review.
[2] The issue is whether the applicant meets the three-part test as set out in Toth v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1988), 86 N.R. 302, which requires the applicant to demonstrate: one, that he has raised a serious issue to be tried; two, that he would suffer irreparable harm if no stay were granted; and three, that the balance of convenience favours the order.
[3] On the question of serious issue, a departure order was issued July 4, 1996, after an inquiry in which the applicant was represented by counsel. Until the hearing of the application for a stay, no application for judicial review was filed from the departure order, and the applicant now intends to proceed with an application for judicial review. The applicant would have to obtain an extension of time to proceed with the application and has offered no reasons for the delay. The applicant's counsel at the inquiry conceded that the applicant was not a permanent resident and that he was convicted. There is no serious issue.
[4] On the question of irreparable harm, the applicant submits that he will lose his employment of seven years in Canada as an auto mechanic and he will be separated from his wife and family, which includes two daughters and four sisters. He has no family remaining in Tanzania. Although these circumstances are difficult for the applicant and his family, they are personal and economic difficulties or inconveniences which do not constitute irreparable harm as defined by the jurisprudence (see McKay, J. in Boquoi v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1993), 67 F.T.R. 232 at 235). There is no irreparable harm.
[5] In light of my first two findings, the balance of convenience favours the Minister. Furthermore, the Minister has a statutory responsibility to enforce removal orders.
[6] The application for a stay is dismissed.
William P. McKeown
JUDGE
OTTAWA, Ontario
May 14, 1998.